Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content



                

Date: 20000713


Docket: IMM-6344-99

    


BETWEEN:


     RADOSLAV ITZOV RADOSLAVOV

     Applicant

    




     - and -

    


                                            

     THE MINISTER OF

     CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent



     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER



CAMPBELL J.


[1]      In the present case, the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "CRDD") dealt with all four claimants herein jointly, because all four claims relate to the same fact situation, and three of the four men are related. All four claimants base their claim to well-founded fear of persecution on a combination of their ethnicity and their perceived political opinion; they are Macedonians and Muslims by faith and identified as being connected to the party "OMO Illinden".

[2]      The fact situation recounted by the CRDD in its decision was apparently accepted as true for all four claimants. Therefore, the refugee claims made by Djembazki, Vratchov and Ayt were accepted as proven. However, the claim made by Radoslavov was not.

[3]      Even though the CRDD described him as a "dull" and "inarticulate" witness, Radoslavov"s claim was denied on the basis of inconsistencies in his evidence. In reaching this decision, the CRDD apparently disregarded the evidence which it had accepted for Djembazki, Vratchov and Ayt. I find this to be a reviewable error.

[4]      In my opinion, it is not possible for the evidence that was accepted for Djembazki, Vratchov and Ayt, in which Radoslavov was an integral participant, not to be accepted for Radoslavov. Therefore, I find that, pursuant to s.18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, the CRDD"s decision was made without regard to the evidence before it.

        



     ORDER

[5]      Accordingly, given the very unusual circumstances of this case, I set the CRDD"s decision aside and refer the matter back to the same panel members for reconsideration on the following directions:

     1.      That the summary of alleged facts as stated in the decision under review with respect to Djembazki and Vratchov at pages 1 to 3, and with respect to Ayt at pages 5 to 6, be accepted as true;
     2.      The redetermination be decided on the basis of this evidence only.

                                 "Douglas R. Campbell"

     J.F.C.C.

Toronto, Ontario

July 13, 2000

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                  IMM-6344-99
STYLE OF CAUSE:              RADOSLAV ITZOV RADOSLAVOV

                     - and -

                     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING:          WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2000
PLACE OF HEARING:          TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:              CAMPBELL J.

                        

DATED:                  THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2000


APPEARANCES BY:           Ms. Helen Turner

                        

                                  For the Applicant
                        
                     Mr. Kevin Lunney

                    

                                 For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:      Ms. Helen Turner

                     Barrister & Solicitor

                     80 Richmond Street, West

                     Toronto, Ontario

                     M5H 2A4

                    

                                 For the Applicant

                        

                     Morris Rosenberg

                     Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                 For the Respondent

                     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA


                                 Date: 20000713

                        

         Docket: IMM-6344-99


                     BETWEEN:


                     RADOSLAV ITZOV RADOSLAVOV

Applicant



                     - and -




                     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                     AND IMMIGRATION


Respondent






                    


                     REASONS FOR ORDER

                     AND 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.