Date: 19980813
Docket: IMM-4698-97
BETWEEN:
MOHAMED HUSSAIN MOHAMED IKRAM
IKRAM FATHIMA RIFKA
IKRAM ANIQAH HAQQANI
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered from the Bench of Toronto,
August 12, 1998, as edited)
ROTHSTEIN, J.:
[1] I am not persuaded that the panel erred in this case. The panel gave numerous reasons why it found the principal applicant's evidence implausible. Implausibility findings are based on inferences the panel draws from the evidence. While, as applicants' counsel points out, there may be explanations that suggests the principal applicant's evidence is credible, the panel's inferences in this case are not unreasonable based on the evidence before it.
[2] For example, the principal applicant testified that he did not have a national identity card (NIC) when he travelled to Colombo. The panel found this inconsistent with a well-founded fear of persecution as it did not believe that he would travel in Sri Lanka without an NIC. It found he was entitled to an NIC and that he knew the process for obtaining it. The principal applicant gave various explanations as to why he did not obtain it. The panel did not accept those explanations. It's reliance on the necessity of Sri Lankans to have an NIC together with the fact that the principal applicant was a Muslim, and therefore generally not considered to be likely to collaborate with the Tamils, is not unreasonable.
[3] Nor do I find that there is evidence of sexism exhibited by the panel as argued by applicants' counsel. Counsel suggests that the female applicant's evidence was ignored by the panel. However, the panel member does make reference to the female applicant's evidence in her reasons. More importantly, the female applicant's refugee claim was dependant on her husband's experiences. It was not sexism for the panel to base its conclusion on the evidence of the husband.
[4] Applicants' counsel says that the IFA determination stands or falls on determination of the credibility issue. As I find the panel did not err in its credibility assessment, it's IFA determination is valid.
[5] The judicial review is dismissed.
"Marshall Rothstein"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
August 13, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-4698-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMED HUSSAIN MOHAMED IKRAM, |
| IKRAM FATHIMA RIFKA and |
| IKRAM ANIQAH HAQQANI |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN, J.
DATED: THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Barbara Jackman
For the Applicants
Mr. Stephen Gold
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Jackman, Waldman & Associates
| Barristers & Solicitors |
281 Eglington Avenue East
| Toronto, Ontario |
| M4P 1L3 |
For the Applicants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980813
Docket: IMM-4698-97
Between:
| MOHAMED HUSSAIN MOHAMED IKRAM, |
| IKRAM FATHIMA RIFKA and |
| IKRAM ANIQAH HAQQANI |
Applicants
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER