Michel v MCI 2010 FC 159

The Court set aside a claim based on generalized risk noting: 35 In the cases cited by the Board in support of its determination regarding the Applicant's s.97 claim, there does not appear to have been similar evidence of personalized targeting. (See Cius, above, and ProphËte v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 331, [2008] F.C.J. No. 415, aff'd, 2009 FCA 31.) 36 The Board's failure to give reasons that addressed the most important evidence adduced in support the Applicants' claims under ss. 96 and 97 of the IRPA, and that failed to address a critical legal argument made in support of Mme. Jean Gilles Michel's claim that she has a well founded fear of persecution based on her gender, renders the Board's Decision unreasonable (Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] S.C.J. No. 39, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at para. 73; and Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1, [2002] S.C.J. No. 3 at paras. 37 to 39). 37 With respect to the above-mentioned legal argument, the Board should have specifically ad-dressed whether there was documentary or other evidence before it as to the generalized persecution of women in Haiti. In addition, the Board ought to have considered whether the evidence supported Mme. Jean Gilles Michel's claim that women in Haiti, as well as those returning to Haiti from aboard, constituted particular social groups (Bastien v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immi-gration), 2008 FC 982, [2008] F.C.J. No. 1218 at para. 12).