Date: 20010501
Docket: IMM-3398-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 419
BETWEEN:
SAYED BALKHI, BIBI FARIDA BALKHI
SAYED MUHAMMAD BALKHI and BIB HIJAB BALKHI
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] The Applicants seek judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Board") dated June 6, 2000 wherein the Board found the Applicants were not Convention refugees. The issue is whether the Board erred in finding that the Applicants were not nationals of Afghanistan.
[2] The Board based its findings on five grounds. However, the paragraph prior to those dealing with these five grounds is important in determining the context of its findings. The Board stated at pages 3 and 4 of its reasons:
The panel was aware that testimony under oath is presumed to be true, unless there is valid reason to doubt its truthfulness. Nevertheless, the panel has valid reasons to doubt and reject the truthfulness of the allegations made in support of Afghan nationality as outlined below.
[3] As part of the first ground of its credibility findings, the Board went on to state at page 4 of its reasons:
No identity documents of any type were presented by any of the claimants. Nor were they able to locate any witnesses who could vouch for them or who knew them in Afghanistan.
[4] It would have been preferable for the Board to have acknowledged that Afghanistan is one of two countries in the world singled out by Canada where refugees are not expected to have documents, see: Subsection 11.402 (1) (d) and Schedule 12 of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, which were in force at the time of the Board's decision. However, it is not a reviewable error to omit such a statement when the finding regarding the Applicants' identity is made in the context of a credibility finding.
[5] It was open to the Board on the evidence before it to make the remaining four findings of fact. None of the findings are unreasonable. In my view, the Board did not ignore evidence. A decision by the Board must be based on the applicant's answers and other evidence, however, the Board is not required to review all of the evidence in detail. The Board is entitled to weigh the evidence. I note that the Board stated twice in its decision that it was aware that the principal male Applicant acted as a chauffeur for an American doctor in Quetta, Pakistan, even though this fact is not specifically mentioned in the analysis of his English language abilities.
[6] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"W.P. McKeown"
Ottawa, Ontario
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3398-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: SAYED BALKHI, BIBI FARIDA BALKHI
SAYED MUHAMMAD BALKHA and
BIB HIJAB BALKHI
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2001
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: McKEOWN J.
DATED: MAY 1, 2001
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Ronald P. Poulton
For the Applicants
Ms. Negar Hashemi
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: JACKMAN, WALDMAN & ASSOCIATES
Barristers & Solicitors
281 Eglinton Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario
M4 P 1L3
For the Applicants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20010501
Docket: IMM-3398-00
BETWEEN:
SAYED BALKHI, BIBI FARIDA BALKHI
SAYED MUYAMMAD BALKHI and
BIB HIJAB BALKHI
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER