Yesterday, the Canadian Federal Court issued an opinion in the case
Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International, and John Doe v. Her Majesty The Queen. This case challenges the "
Safe Third Country Agreement" between Canada and the United States that came into force in December 2004. This agreement pro
vides that, with limited exceptions, individuals who
first enter either Canada or the United States and
then attempt to cross a land border into
the other country in order to lodge an asylum claim must be returned to claim asylum in the
first country they entered. In assessing the constitutionality of the agreement, the Canadian Court found that
the United States does not comply adequately with Article 33 of the U
N Refugee Convention, which prohibits return to persecution, or Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits return to torture -- specifically naming the Maher Arar case as an example of the United States' failure to protect. As one of the experts who described the ways in which U.S. asylum law (in particular, the
one-year filing deadline) violates international law, I am proud to note that the court found "the Applicant's experts to be more credible, both in terms of their expertise and the sufficiency, directness and logic of their reports" and "more objective and dispassionate in their analysis and report" than the government's experts. Of particular note, the Court found that "
it would be unreasonable to conclude that the one-year bar, as it is applied in the U.S., is consistent with the Convention Against Torture and the Refugee Convention" and that this bar "has a
disproportionate impact on gender and sexual orientation claims" for asylum. The Court also found that
women making asylum claims based on domestic violence are not sufficiently protected under U.S. law. The long decision is well worth a read, and while it bodes well for asylum seekers in Canada (assuming that the judge's final order, after further submissions, follows this opinion, and that the decision survives appeal), it reads as a
damning critique of the treatment of those seeking protection in the United States.
Yesterday, the Canadian Federal Court issued an opinion in the case Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International, and John Doe v. Her Majesty The Queen. This case challenges the "Safe Third Country Agreement" between Canada and the United States that came into force in December 2004. This agreement provides that, with limited exceptions, individuals who first enter either Canada or the United States and then attempt to cross a land border into the other country in order to lodge an asylum claim must be returned to claim asylum in the first country they entered. In assessing the constitutionality of the agreement, the Canadian Court found that the United States does not comply adequately with Article 33 of the U
N Refugee Convention, which prohibits return to persecution, or Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits return to torture -- specifically naming the Maher Arar case as an example of the United States' failure to protect. As one of the experts who described the ways in which U.S. asylum law (in particular, the one-year filing deadline) violates international law, I am proud to note that the court found "the Applicant's experts to be more credible, both in terms of their expertise and the sufficiency, directness and logic of their reports" and "more objective and dispassionate in their analysis and report" than the government's experts. Of particular note, the Court found that "it would be unreasonable to conclude that the one-year bar, as it is applied in the U.S., is consistent with the Convention Against Torture and the Refugee Convention" and that this bar "has a disproportionate impact on gender and sexual orientation claims" for asylum. The Court also found that women making asylum claims based on domestic violence are not sufficiently protected under U.S. law. The long decision is well worth a read, and while it bodes well for asylum seekers in Canada (assuming that the judge's final order, after further submissions, follows this opinion, and that the decision survives appeal), it reads as a damning critique of the treatment of those seeking protection in the United States.
