Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19981007


Docket: IMM-4883-97

IN THE MATTER OF the Immigration Act, 1976, as amended, S.C. 1989, c.35;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination

Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board regarding the claim to Convention

Refugee Status of MOHAMMED MAHFUZ ALAM.

BETWEEN:

     MOHAMMED MAHFUZ ALAM

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

McGILLIS J.

[1]      The applicant has challenged by way of judicial review a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") that he was not a Convention refugee.

[2]      In its decision, the Board made no adverse finding of credibility against the applicant. However, it concluded that the applicant had not established that there was "...clear and convincing evidence to prove that [Bangladesh] could not protect him from the [Bangladesh National Party] goons." In that regard, the Board noted that the Bangladesh National Party was no longer the government in power, and that the applicant's Jatiya Party has entered into an alliance with the ruling Awami League.

[3]      A review of the reasons, in their totality, reveals that the Board ignored or failed to consider in its analysis the specific evidence of the applicant that his problems with the police and with the goons from the Bangladesh National Party continued after the election in which the Awami League became the government, and after he had fled to Canada. In the circumstances, I have concluded that the Board's decision is patently unreasonable, given its failure to consider relevant and credible evidence in assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh.

[4]      The application for judicial review is allowed. The decision of the Board is quashed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted Board for rehearing and redermination. The case raises no serious question of general importance.

"D. McGillis"

Judge

TORONTO, ONTARIO

October 7, 1998

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-4883-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:                      MOHAMMED MAHFUZ ALAM

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

DATE OF HEARING:                  TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1998

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:              McGILLIS, J.

DATED:                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1998

APPEARANCES:                     

                             Mr. Ian Wong

                                 For the Applicant

                             Ms. Lori Hendricks

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:             

                             Bush, White & Wong

                             Barristers & Solicitors
                             6 Adelaide Street East
                             10th Floor
                             Toronto, Ontario
                             M5C 1H6

                                 For the Applicant

                              Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

                                 For the Respondent

                            

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19981007

                        

         Docket: IMM-4883-97

                             Between:

                             MOHAMMED MAHFUZ ALAM

     Applicant

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                        

     Respondent

                    

                            

            

                                                                                 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

                            


 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.