Date: 19980515
Docket: IMM-1618-97
BETWEEN:
LJILJANA GAJIC
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCGILLIS, J.
[1] Despite the able argument of counsel for the applicant, I have not been persuaded that the Immigration and Refugee Board committed any error in rejecting the applicant's claim to Convention refugee status.
[2] In its decision, the Board found some elements of the applicant's evidence to be lacking in credibility. In its analysis on the question of credibility, the Board explained in considerable detail its reasons for not believing certain aspects of the applicant's evidence, and noted that the applicant's testimony was "...most of the time, confusing and the [applicant] was evasive and less than forthright in her answers, despite numerous attempts from counsel, RCO and [the Board] to clarify areas of concern." The Board also noted that the applicant's counsel at the hearing admitted in his submissions that her evidence "...could properly be said to have been given in a confused fashion", and that she failed "...to address her answers to the specific questions." The Board further concluded, on the basis of documentary evidence, that the applicant was not "...similarly situated with people who suffer persecution in Yugoslavia." Finally, the Board found that the applicant did not provide a satisfactory explanation to justify her delay in making her refugee claim.
[3] Counsel for the applicant submitted, among other things, that the Board made various factual errors in analysing the applicant's credibility. I agree that the Board made some factual errors in its analysis. However, I am of the opinion that the evidence in the record, when considered in its totality, indicates that it was reasonably open to the Board to find that central aspects of the applicant's story were not credible.
[4] Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant was denied procedural fairness by virtue of the Board's frequent interruptions of her testimony. That submission is wholly without merit. The Board members and counsel at the hearing interrupted the applicant during her evidence in a vain attempt to encourage her to respond the questions posed and to clarify her confusing and non-responsive answers. I am satisfied, on the basis of the evidence in the record, that there was no denial of procedural fairness.
[5] The application for judicial review is dismissed. The case raises no serious question of general importance.
| ____________________________ |
| Judge |
OTTAWA
May 15, 1998