Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20030305

Docket: IMM-3989-02

Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 276

Toronto, Ontario, Wednesday, the 5th day of March, 2003

Present:          The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell

BETWEEN:

                                             NIHAT ASAN

                                                                                                     Applicant

                                                    - and -

   THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                 Respondent

                     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division ("CRDD") of the Immigration Refugee Board, dated July 9, 2002, wherein it determined that the Applicant is not a Convention refugee.

The Applicant is an Alevi Kurd from Turkey who claims a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his political opinion, his religion and his ethnic identity.


In the present case, in an affidavit filed in support of his application, the Applicant says that he did not feel that he had a fair hearing. In addition, in an affidavit, counsel for the Applicant who represented him before the CRDD details support for this statement. Indeed, on my perusal of the transcript of the hearing, I can understand the Applicant's concern.

The record shows that the CRDD felt it was under pressure of time to conduct the hearing. I agree with counsel for the Applicant in the present case that this pressure caused the CRDD to unreasonably direct the production of the Applicant's case, against the objection of the Applicant's counsel. In addition, the perceived time pressure resulted in inordinate interjections by the Presiding Member to limit the production of evidence, including the essential evidence by the Applicant with respect to his torture.

As a result, I agree with the Applicant and find that the CRDD's decision was rendered in serious breach of due process.

                                     ORDER

Accordingly, I set aside the CRDD's decision and refer the matter back for redetermination before a different constituted panel.

                                                                              "Douglas R. Campbell"                   

                                                                                                      J.F.C.C.        


                              FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                  TRIAL DIVISION

    Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                              IMM-3989-02

                                                         

STYLE OF CAUSE:            NIHAT ASAN     

                                                                                                     Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                 Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:      TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:        TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:              CAMPBELL, J.

DATED:                                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2003

APPEARANCES BY:          Mr. Lorne Waldman   

For the Applicant

Ms. Neeta Logsetty

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                        Lorne Waldman

Waldman & Associates

281 Eglinton Avenue East

Toronto, Ontario

M4P 1L3            

For the Applicant

Morris Rosenberg         

                                                Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                    Date: 20030305

Docket: IMM-3989-02

BETWEEN:

NIHAT ASAN

                   Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                    Respondent

                                                   

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER

                                                   

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.