Date: 20000505
Docket: IMM-3283-99
BETWEEN:
RAHELA ZANNAT,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
DENAULT, J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board"), dated June 7, 1999, wherein the Board concluded that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
[2] After mentioning in its analysis that the central issue was the applicant's alleged persecution by her husband because of her gender, the Board found it necessary " . . . to take into account . . . the issue of credibility", and then concluded that there had been no demonstration that the applicant's State (Bangladesh) was unwilling or unable to protect her.
[3] The applicant submits that the Board breached its statutory duty under 69.1(11) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-2, to give reasonably intelligible written reasons for its negative decision because, according to the applicant, it is impossible to determine from the Board's reasons whether her claim failed for lack of credibility or lack of foundation.
[4] As I indicated at the end of the hearing, this is a case where the intervention of the Court is warranted, the Board having failed to give reasons " . . . sufficiently clear, precise and intelligible . . ."1 so that the applicant may know why her claim had failed.
[5] In the instance, it is not clear whether the Board rejected the applicant's claim for lack of credibility or a lack of well-foundedness. The applicant was entitled to know whether she was disbelieved or whether she did not meet the definition of a Convention refugee.
[6] Anyhow, the Board seems to have found that the applicant was not credible on the basis of facts which were in no way relevant to the issue, i.e. failure to mention her father's death in her Personal Information Form, and the mailing of divorce papers to the last known address of her husband.
[7] Consequently, the decision will be set aside and the matter shall be returned to a different panel for reconsideration.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is allowed; the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, dated June 7, 1999, is set aside and the matter shall be returned to a different panel for consideration.
______________________________
Juge
Ottawa, Ontario
May 5, 2000
__________________1 Mehterian v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (F.C.A.) [1992] F.C.J. No. 545 (A-717-90.)