Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration)

[2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2002 SCC 1 (2002)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration)

Canada Supreme Court
[2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2002 SCC 1 (2002)

Facts

Manickavasagam Suresh (plaintiff) was a Sri Lankan citizen who went to Canada as a refugee. Within a year of arrival, Suresh applied for status as a landed immigrant. However, Suresh’s application was never completed because four years later, Canada’s solicitor general, along with the minister of citizenship and immigration (the minister) (defendant), sought to deport Suresh on national-security grounds. Deportation was sought based on an opinion issued by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that indicated Suresh was of Tamil descent and a member of and a fundraiser for a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka called the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (the Tigers), which operated in Canada under the name World Tamil Movement. The Tigers were subjected to torture by Sri Lankan authorities. Deportation hearings revealed that Suresh was not directly involved in terrorism but that he should be deported because of his membership in a terrorist organization. The minister notified Suresh that she was considering declaring him a threat to national security, which under Canadian law permitted her to deport a refugee regardless of whether the refugee’s life would be at risk upon removal. Suresh filed a written response with evidence regarding the torture of members of the Tigers. An immigration officer considered Suresh’s submission and entered an opinion that cited Suresh as a danger, although acknowledging that Suresh had not committed any violence and that his life might be at risk upon return. However, the officer felt that, on balance, deportation was warranted. The minister then used this opinion to declare Suresh a threat to Canadian security and to deport him. Suresh was given no opportunity to see or respond to the immigration officer’s opinion before the minister made her decision. Suresh sought judicial review from the Federal Court, which found that the minister’s balancing of the risk of deporting Suresh to possible torture versus the risk Suresh posed to national security was consistent with fundamental justice. Suresh appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, which dismissed his application. Suresh appealed to the Canada Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership