Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

                 Date: 19980824                 
                 Docket: IMM-4158-97                 
                 BETWEEN:                 
                      DEBNATH, MUKUNDA CHANDRA,                 
                 Applicant,                 
                      - and -                 
                      THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,                 
                 Respondent.                 
                      REASONS FOR ORDER                 
                 TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:                 

[1]      The panel's decision is based on a finding that the applicant's testimony was vague and evasive and consequently lacked credibility.


[2]      After careful reading of the transcript, I am of the view that this finding cannot be challenged. The few factual errors in the panel's decision are minor and do not affect the overall finding of lack of credibility. There is no ground for the Court's intervention.

[3]      Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.


[4]      Counsel for the Applicant submits the following question for certification:

                                 Before reaching a final conclusion to the effect that a refugee claimant was vague and confused in his testimony and therefore not credible, are the CRDD members obliged first to take into account and evaluate the claimant's obvious - apparent highly emotional state - behaviour at the hearing as a possible explanation for such vagueness and confusion?                                 

[5]      Questions of credibility have been the subject of numerous decisions from the Federal Court of Appeal. In such a case, no question will be certified.

                      "Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"                 
                                                                                          JUDGE                 
                 OTTAWA, ONTARIO                 
                 August 24, 1998.                 

 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.