I am working on a paper with Dr. Hap Davis IV on the psychological considerations on the concept of atrocity and the compelling reasons exception contained in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
A “Compelling Reason” is an exception under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It provides an avenue to a refugee to be protected even if changes in the socio-political landscape of the country of origin makes it no longer possible for the individual to say that removal from Canada would subject him or her to danger of torture, cruel or unusual treatment or punishment, or a risk to life.
Through jurisprudence the Federal Court in Canada indicates that if a person has suffered “appalling” or “atrocious” treatment, then this person may apply for the compelling reasons exception to the Act even if a return would otherwise be deemed safe. However, beyond the provision of synonymous and subjective terms such as "appalling" or "atrocious" the Court has not provided sufficient direction to the Refugee Protection Division.
We hope to provide a review of of empirical psychological literature by which mental disorder and loss of instrumental, social, emotional and cognitive functioning in a claimant may be used to describe the context and scope of an individual suffering from extreme and disproportionate hardship.
If society sets the terms for what acts may be deemed appalling then psychology can help establish whether the atrocity can be elevated to a compelling reason sufficient to grant protection. Prevalence and severity of disorder may be used to give dimension to the term “compelling”.
Finally, the utility of psychological science should be underscored to both practitioners and adjudicators that are charged with administering internationally accepted human rights codes for protection of persecuted persons.
Comments