Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20030326

Docket: IMM-3006-02

Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 355

Toronto, Ontario, Wednesday, the 26th day of March 2003

PRESENT:      The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan

BETWEEN:

                                   MOHAMED IMRAN BADURDEEN (MUHUSEEN)

                                                                                                                                                         Applicant

                                                                              - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                     Respondent

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

        Mr. Mohamed Imran Badurdeen (Muhuseen) (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "Board") dated June 11, 2002. In its decision the Board found the Applicant not to be a Convention refugee.

[2]                 The Applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, is a Muslim Tamil. He arrived in Canada on October 3, 2000 after a four month stay in the United States of America. He claimed Convention refugee status in Canada on the day after his arrival in this country.

[3]                 The basis of the Applicant's claim was a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka by the Sri Lankan Army (the "SLA") and other Sri Lankan authorities. He claimed that he would be persecuted for refusing to identify suppliers and members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (the "LTTE") that he recognized since he once lived in LTTE-controlled territory, that is Mannar.

[4]                 The Board concluded that the Applicant failed to present credible evidence that he would face more than a mere possibility of persecution in Colombo, Sri Lanka, if he was to return. The Board accepted his identity and that he was a Tamil and a Muslim, however, the Board concluded that the Applicant's evidence only showed that he faced the "general indescriminate [sic] consequences of civil war" and that he was not at greater risk than the residents of Colombo.

[5]                 The Board made a sweeping statement about the Applicant's credibility when it said the following:

To lie about experience and to fabricate abuse at the hands of the Sri Lankan authorities, cause the panel to draw a negative inference on the well founded fear of the claimant.

[6]                 In my opinion, the Board here failed to adequately analyse the evidence submitted by the Applicant. It did not provide reasons for its rejection of his evidence. It did not meet the standard described by the Federal Court of Appeal in Hilo v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 199 (F.C.A.) at paragraph 6 as follows:

...In my view, the board was under a duty to give its reasons for casting doubt upon the appellant's credibility in clear and unmistakable terms. The board's credibility assessment, quoted supra, is defective because it is couched in vague and general terms. The board concluded that the appellant's evidence lacked detail and was sometimes inconsistent. Surely particulars of the lack of detail and of the inconsistencies should have been provided. Likewise particulars of his inability to answer questions should have been made available.

[7]                 The Board has failed to meet this standard. The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination. Counsel advise that there is no question for certification.

                                                  ORDER

The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination. There is no question for certification.

                                                                                           "E. Heneghan"             

                                                                                                      J.F.C.C.                     


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

TRIAL DIVISION

Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                              IMM-3006-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:              MOHAMED IMRAN BADURDEEN (MUHUSEEN)

Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

Respondent

DATE OF HEARING:                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2003

PLACE OF HEARING:                      TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER AND

ORDER BY:                                        Heneghan J.

DATED:                                                 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2003

APPEARANCES BY:                          Mr. David P.Yerzy

                                                                                                                                For the Applicant

Mr. Alexis Singer                                                                                                                                                                                                                    For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:           David P. Yerzy

Barrister & Solicitor

14 Prince Arthur Avenue

Suite 108

Toronto, Ontario

M5R 1A9

For the Applicant                                                                       

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent             


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA                          

                                                                            

                                                                                        Date: 20030326

                                                                           Docket: IMM-3006-02

BETWEEN:

                                                           

MOHAMED IMRAN BADURDEEN

(MUHUSEEN)

         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.