Date: 20010223
Docket: IMM-1291-99
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 108
Ottawa, Ontario, Friday, the 23rd day of February, 2001
| PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MacKAY |
BETWEEN:
KULAMANIDEVI YOGESWARAN
JEEVARAJ YOGESWARAN
THARSA YOGESWARAN
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicants seek judicial review of, and an order setting aside, the decision dated February 17, 1999, whereby the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board determined that the applicants were not Convention refugees under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] Counsel for the parties were heard at Toronto on August 15, 2000, when decision was reserved. Upon consideration of submissions then made, the Court issued Reasons for decision and then, before issuing an order in the matter, directed the parties to submit any questions proposed for consideration, pursuant to s-s. 83(1) of the Act. Submissions were thereafter received, with the applicants proposing, and the respondent objecting to, certification of the following questions:
| 1. Where the authenticity of a claimant's identity documents is in doubt does the tribunal err in concluding that the claimants did not present credible evidence in support of their identity without first forwarding the impugned identity documents to the foreign issuing agency, firstly to validate their authenticity and secondly to allow the issuing agency to offer an explanation with respect to the discrepancies found in the documents. |
| 2. In a joint claim where the principal claimant is appointed as designated representative for the minor claimants, and is found entirely not credible, does the tribunal deny natural justice to the minor claimants and err in rejecting the claim without first appointing a new designated representative to properly represent the interests of the minor claimants. |
[3] After consideration, the Court concludes that an answer to proposed question 1 would not be dispositive of an appeal since the lack of credibility of the applicants' evidence, as found by the panel and upheld by this Court, was based upon more than uncertainty about the identity of the applicants. Further, proposed question 2 relates to an issue that was not specifically raised by the grounds set out in the application for judicial review, or in the applicants' record, was not argued at the hearing, and was not dealt with by the Court's Reasons in this matter.
[4] Thus, the Court is not persuaded that the proposed questions are appropriate for certification under s-s. 83(1).
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
| 1. The application is dismissed. |
| 2. No question is certified for consideration by the Court of Appeal pursuant to s-s. 83(1) of the Act. |
(Signed) W. Andrew MacKay
___________________________________
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
February 23, 2001