A former informant for Ethiopia’s brutal Derg regime has been granted a new opportunity to argue for his right to remain in Canada. The Federal Court has overturned a decision that would have seen Mesresha Zewide deported, sending his case back for reconsideration.
Background of the Case
Mesresha Zewide, an Ethiopian national who arrived in Canada 22 years ago as a refugee, was seeking permanent residency when immigration officials flagged his past. In April 2017, it was determined that his involvement with Ethiopia’s Marxist-Leninist military junta, known as the Derg, rendered him inadmissible to Canada due to potential involvement in crimes against humanity. The Derg ruled Ethiopia for 17 years, from 1974 to 1991.
Justice John Norris, in a recent Federal Court decision, detailed Zewide’s role. At the age of 17 in June 1989, Zewide was reportedly forcibly recruited to work for a local ‘kebele’ in Addis Ababa. These neighborhood associations were established by the Derg regime to monitor political opposition.
For nearly two years, Zewide gathered and reported information on individuals suspected of belonging to opposition groups, including the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and the Ethiopian People’s Liberation Front (EPLF). The court decision noted that individuals he reported on were subsequently arrested and imprisoned. It was also acknowledged that some of these individuals likely faced interrogation, beatings, and torture, abuses that were widespread during the Derg’s rule.
Zewide’s Path to Canada and Refugee Status
Zewide himself faced repercussions for his activities. After the EPRDF overthrew the Derg in May 1991, ending the Ethiopian Civil War, Zewide was arrested and detained in Ethiopia. He spent a month in custody before managing to escape and eventually making his way to Canada.
In June 2008, Zewide was granted refugee protection in Canada. This status was based on his well-founded fear of persecution from the EPRDF government, the very group that had overthrown the regime he worked for.
Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds
Following the determination of his inadmissibility to Canada, Zewide applied for an exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. His application highlighted several factors:
- His consistently positive and pro-social conduct in Canada since his arrival in 2004.
- His established life and integration within Canada.
- The best interests of his daughter, born in the United States in 2003, who resides there with her mother.
- Travel restrictions he faces due to his status.
- The negative impact of his provisional refugee status on his mental health and overall well-being.
Zewide, now 54, emphasized that the events in question occurred long ago when he was a youth and was forcibly conscripted. He argued that his subsequent life, which included activism in support of human rights in Ethiopia, demonstrated that his past actions did not reflect his true character.
Immigration Decision and Federal Court Review
A senior decision-maker at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) initially denied Zewide’s request, concluding that the positive humanitarian and compassionate factors were insufficient to overcome his inadmissibility.
Zewide challenged this decision in Federal Court, arguing it was unreasonable. Justice Norris agreed, identifying several critical errors in the original assessment.
Speculation on Future Citizenship
One significant issue was the decision-maker’s speculation regarding Zewide’s future eligibility for Canadian citizenship. The decision-maker stated it was doubtful he would be granted citizenship even if granted permanent residency, as his inadmissibility would not be erased by an exemption. Justice Norris found this to be an unwarranted assumption. The court stated that it was an error for the decision-maker to speculate about future outcomes, as they had no way of knowing if a future decision-maker would grant further relief.
Mischaracterization of Zewide’s Position
Furthermore, the court found that the decision-maker had mischaracterized Zewide’s stance on his past actions. While the decision-maker acknowledged Zewide’s youth and the short duration of his involvement with the Derg, they also noted he had not expressed remorse and had repeatedly defended his actions by stating he had no choice. Justice Norris corrected this, stating that Zewide had never defended his actions as right or justified. Instead, he accepted that his actions, like those of the regime, were wrong but argued they should be excused to some degree due to his youth and lack of realistic alternatives at the time.
The judge emphasized that while this did not alter Zewide’s inadmissibility, it was a factor that could mitigate the significance of that finding when balancing competing considerations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Act allows the Immigration Minister to grant permanent resident status based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
Justice Norris concluded that the senior decision-maker failed to accurately characterize Zewide’s position, which was a central argument in his case. This failure, along with a suggestion that Zewide should consider himself fortunate for his current provisional status, indicated a lack of alertness and sensitivity to the specific circumstances of Zewide’s case. This undermined the reasonableness of the overall balancing of positive and negative factors in the original decision.
Next Steps for Zewide’s Case
As a result of the Federal Court’s decision, Zewide’s application for judicial review was allowed. His case has been sent back to be redetermined by a different immigration official. Zewide will be given a reasonable opportunity to present updated submissions and supporting evidence to the new decision-maker.
The court’s ruling underscores the importance of accurately assessing an applicant’s position and avoiding speculation when considering humanitarian and compassionate grounds for immigration. The case highlights the complex balancing act involved in immigration decisions, particularly when past actions, age at the time of events, and subsequent life conduct are weighed.
