Federal Court Decisions

     IMM-3207-96

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     (TRIAL DIVISION)

B E T W E E N:

     MOHAMMED ALAMGIR HOSSAIN MULLICK

     (a.k.a. ALAMGIR HOSSAIN MULLICK)

     and

     MASUDA BEGUM

     (a.k.a. MASUD BEGUM)

     Applicants

     and

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION      Respondent

    

Held before the Associate Chief Justice, the Honourable Mr. Justice Jerome, of the Federal Court of Canada, Courtroom No. 7, 330 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, on the 6th day of May 1997.

    

     ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

    

A P P E A R A N C E S:

MS. C. LE RICHE      for the Respondent

MR. D. LEHRER      for the Applicants

     S. Ziegler - Registrar

    

     NETHERCUT & COMPANY LIMITED

     Official Reporters

     Suite 2304, 180 Dundas Street West

     Toronto, Ontario M4C 3E6

     (416) 593-4802

     Per: Jean Caldicott, cvr

     HIS LORDSHIP: Thank you, Mr. Lehrer, for your reply submission. I'm sorry that I can't be more helpful to your Applicant here. It's not for me to decide whether I'm going to consider some of the documentary evidence more significant or reach a different conclusion. Aguebor truly tells me that -- of course I'm referring to the -- by that I mean Aguebor against the Minister in the Federal Court of Appeal in July 16th, '93 -- formalizing what we had said many times before: that is especially in areas of credibility and plausibility we ought to tamper with the decision of the tribunal which heard the evidence and saw the witnesses only on the rarest of occasions and only when there is clear justification for doing so, and that is because each of us regards our ability to see those who give evidence in front of us and their demeanour as a major factor in the witnesses that I believe and other judges believe, and therefore it should be with respect to tribunals who are triers of fact in this case, so long as, of course, the tribunal identifies the reasons for their concern, the basis for their concern, with particularity, and in this case the tribunal has identified not a high number of concerns, but certainly two or three major concerns, and it's a consistent, being just a hearing and it's certainly for you to -- it's dealt with in two or three different sections of the Reasons, and in the end they indicate that there are some differences between the Personal Information Form and their oral testimony; that there is contradiction within the oral testimony itself, and some implausibility in that the Applicants didn't answer questions which would seem to be fairly fundamental with respect to a knowledge, especially to those who are politically active, of certain events in the area of the referendum, the closure of universities that they said they attended.

     These certainly are areas which are proper and relevant evidence for the Board to consider in reaching the conclusion they did, and therefore, on the basis of the Aguebor direction to me, I will dismiss this Application for Review and I will, as soon as my Reasons are transcribed and available to me, I'll either edit them and file them as a transcript of Reasons pursuant to section 50 of the Federal Court Act, or else do Reasons based on them, but not departing in any way substantially from them.

     Thank you.

     And today I'll make an endorsement that -- I'll do it now -- as indicated in the Oral Reasons, the application is dismissed with brief Reasons to be filed.

---adjourned at 11:20 a.m.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:

Jean Caldicott

Certified Verbatim Reporter

593-4802