Date: 20000804
Docket: IMM-4293-99
BETWEEN:
NELUFER MUMTAZ KADEER
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
GIBSON J.
[1] These reasons arise out of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "CRDD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board in which the CRDD rejected the applicant"s second claim to Convention refugee status in Canada. The decision is dated the 23rd of July, 1999.
[2] The CRDD described the issue before it and the matters it considered in the following terms in its reasons for decision:
| The issue before the panel is whether the claimant is a Convention refugee as defined in section 2(1) of the Immigration Act. In order to decide this issue, the panel considered: |
| a) any change in the claimant"s personal circumstances or country conditions since the original claim was determined and rejected that would impact on the objective basis of this claim; and |
| b) the credibility of the claimant"s testimony. |
| [citation omitted] |
[3] Earlier in its reasons, the CRDD wrote:
| The hearing proceeded on the basis of the Vasquez decision. |
| [citation omitted] |
[4] The "Vasquez decision" referred to is Vasquez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)1. In that decision, Mr. Justice Rothstein concluded that a prior decision of a credible basis tribunal gave rise to the principle of issue estoppel when the question, involving the same parties, came forward at a later date before the CRDD, because the decision of the credible basis tribunal was a final decision.
[5] Counsel for the applicant urged that, on the facts of this matter, the CRDD erred in law in adopting Vasquez as a basis with the result that issue estoppel applied by reason of the earlier decision of a different panel of the CRDD with respect to the same applicant.
[6] I am satisfied that, in determining this matter, I need not go so far as to decide whether or not the Vasquez decision is binding on a panel of the CRDD. I reach this conclusion because I am satisfied on the basis of the reasons of the CRDD that are now before this Court, that the CRDD did not determine that it was bound by the Vasquez decision. Rather, it chose to simply apply that decision. I am satisfied that that option was reasonably open to it. I leave open for another day the question of whether or not another panel of the CRDD, notwithstanding Vasquez, might choose to rehear de novo a second or subsequent application for Convention refugee status. I am loathe, on the very specific facts of this application for judicial review, to foreclose that possibility.
[7] In the result, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither counsel recommended certification of a question. No question will be certified.
"Frederick E. Gibson"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
August 4, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-4293-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: NELUFER MUMTAZ KADEER |
Applicant
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
| DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: GIBSON J. |
DATED: FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 2000
| APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Ricardo Aguirre |
| For the Applicant |
| Ms. Susan Nucci |
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Jackman, Waldman & Associates |
| Barristers & Solicitors |
| 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: 20000804
Docket: IMM-4293-99
BETWEEN:
| NELUFER MUMTAZ KADEER |
Applicant
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
| REASONS FOR ORDER |
__________________