Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19980217


Docket: IMM-1759-97

     IN THE MATTER OF the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, s.82.3, c.I-2 and amendments and regulations thereto;         
     AND IN THE MATTER OF a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division;         
     AND IN THE MATTER OF the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.         

BETWEEN:

     VIJAYKUMAR VEERAKATHY

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

McGILLIS, J.

[1]      Despite the able argument of counsel for the applicant, I have concluded that the application for judicial review must be dismissed.

[2]      In its reasons for decision, the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") determined that the applicant's evidence was not credible on the basis of a material discrepancy between the port of entry notes and his personal information form concerning his alleged conscription by the LTTE, as well as his "unacceptable explanation" in his testimony on that subject. The Board further found that, even if it were to accept the applicant's evidence concerning that discrepancy, other aspects of his evidence relating to his arrest and detention by the army and his subsequent release in Colombo were implausible. In my opinion, the findings made by the Board were reasonably open to it.

[3]      Counsel for the applicant also argued that the Board had erred in law by denying the applicant a hearing before a two member panel. I cannot accept that submission. A review of the transcript indicates that the applicant, who was represented by an experienced lawyer, expressly consented to proceeding before a one member panel. The transcript further indicates that the applicant was aware that his credibility would be in issue at the hearing. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Board improperly denied the applicant a hearing before a two member panel.

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

"D. McGillis"

Judge

Toronto, Ontario

February 17, 1998

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                          IMM-1759-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:                      VIJAYKUMAR VEERAKATHY

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                             AND IMMIGRATION

DATE OF HEARING:                  FEBRUARY 17, 1998

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:              McGILLIS, J.

DATED:                          FEBRUARY 17, 1998

APPEARANCES:                 

                             Mr. Jegan N. Mohan

                            

                                 For the Applicant

                             Mr. David Tyndale

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:         

                             Mohan & Mohan

                             225-3300 McNicoll Avenue

                             Scarborough, Ontario

                             M1V 5J6

                                 For the Applicant

                             George Thomson

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

                                  For the Respondent


                                                                            FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
                                             Date: 19980217
                                             Docket: IMM-1759-97
                                                                          BETWEEN:
                                                                 
                                             VIJAYKUMAR VEERAKATHY
                                                  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.