Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content




Date: 19991207


Docket: IMM-769-99


BETWEEN:

     JEGATHEESWARAN LAWRENCE

     Applicant


     - and -




     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent




     REASONS FOR ORDER

     (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,

     on Tuesday, December 7, 1999)

McGILLIS J.


[1]      The applicant has challenged by way of judicial review a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") dated January 25, 1999 that he was not a Convention refugee. The applicant is a Tamil citizen of Sri Lanka who came to Canada on September 22, 1997 and claimed refugee status based on his membership in a particular social group, namely young Tamil males from the north of Sri Lanka, and on a political opinion that can be imputed to him.

[2]      In its decision, the Board found that the applicant was not credible or trustworthy and that his evidence concerning the central elements of his claim was implausible. The Board provided detailed reasons in support of its finding that the applicant lacked credibility, including the fact that the central elements of the claim were not contained in the applicant's personal information form.

[3]      Despite the very able argument of counsel for the applicant, I have not been persuaded that the decision of the Board was unreasonable on the basis of the evidence in the record. In particular, it was open to the Board to conclude that the applicant lacked credibility due to his failure to outline the central elements of his claim in his personal information form and his contradictory evidence in which he attempted to explain that omission. In short, even if I were to find that the Board made errors in assessing the evidence before it, its overall conclusion cannot be said to be unreasonable.

[4]      With respect to the submission that the applicant was denied a fair hearing, I have carefully reviewed the transcript of the hearing and have concluded that the questions posed by the Board member at various stages of the hearing were designed to clarify certain aspects of the applicant's evidence or to request him to explain various inconsistencies or contradictions. The interventions by the Board member did not therefore result in the denial of a fair hearing to the applicant. [See Mahendran v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] F.C.J. No. 549 at para. 7 (C.A.)].

[5]      The application for judicial review is dismissed. The case raises no serious question of general importance.

     "D. McGillis"

     Judge

Toronto, Ontario

December 7, 1999


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                      IMM-769-99
STYLE OF CAUSE:                  JEGATHEESWARAN LAWRENCE

     Applicant

     - and -


                         THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

DATE OF HEARING:              TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY:          McGILLIS J.

DATED:                      TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1999

APPEARANCES:                  Mr. Avi J. Sirlin
                             For the Applicant
                         Ms. Cheryl D. Mitchell
                             For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          Avi J. Sirlin

                         Barrister & Solicitor

                         425 University Avenue, Suite 500

                         Toronto, Ontario

                         M5G 1T6

                             For the Applicant

                         Morris Rosenberg

                         Deputy Attorney General of Canada
                             For the Respondent

                         FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA


                                 Date: 19991207

                        

         Docket: IMM-769-99


                                    

                         BETWEEN:     

    

                         JEGATHEESWARAN LAWRENCE

     Applicant

     - and -



                         THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent



                                

                        

            

                                                                         REASONS FOR 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.