Date: 20040427
Docket: IMM-2534-03
Citation: 2004 FC 620
Toronto, Ontario, April 27th, 2004
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
ZSOLT AMBRUS
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] (Delivered orally) The applicant, a Hungarian national, arrived in Canada on November 23, 2001 and claimed refugee status. His claim was referred to the Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) on May 24, 2002. He was provided with a personal information form (PIF) to complete and forward to the CRDD. The CRDD received the applicant's completed, but unsigned, PIF on January 8, 2002. On June 28, 2002, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) came into effect. On December 5, 2002, the applicant attended at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) assignment court where his right to counsel was explained to him.
[2] The hearing of the applicant's refugee claim was held on February 3, 2003. At the outset of the hearing, the presiding member of the RPD asked the applicant to confirm that he was proceeding without counsel. The applicant so confirmed. The presiding member then asked the applicant to confirm that his PIF had been translated to him and that he understood its contents. The applicant so confirmed. The presiding member asked the applicant to sign his PIF and to swear that its contents were true and accurate. The applicant so swore. The PIF was entered into evidence as Exhibit "C-1".
[3] The RPD found the applicant to be not credible and accordingly rejected his claim. The board disbelieved that the applicant is a Roma. It highlighted numerous material inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, including his behaviour (re-availment) that was inconsistent with a genuine subjective fear of persecution.
[4] The applicant does not take issue with the substantive determination of the RPD concerning the merits of his claim. Rather, he asserts that his hearing should have been governed by the provisions of the former Act pursuant to section 191 of the IRPA transitional provisions. The applicant argues that because his PIF was submitted to the RPD prior to the coming into force of IRPA, substantive evidence had been adduced, and accordingly, section 191 applies such that it was necessary for the applicant to explicitly consent to a single member panel of the RPD.
[5] The applicant's argument is without merit. It falls squarely within the reasoning of:
Aquino v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 144 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.); Isufi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2003 FC 880; Tothi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FC; Mgvdeladze v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Court File Number IMM-6563-02; and Borcsok v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FC 445.
[6] Regarding the applicant's proposed certification of the question - what is the meaning of
"matter" and when is evidence adduced - I concur in the reasoning of my colleague, Mr. Justice Lemieux in Tothi, supra, wherein he stated:
[...] the interpretation of the word "matter" in section 191 of the IRPA is irrelevant in the circumstances because clearly there was an application and a proceeding before the tribunal which engaged section 191. Interpreting the word "matter" in the circumstances, would have no impact nor would it be determinative to the application of section 191 of the IRPA.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application for judicial review is dismissed. No
question is certified.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2534-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ZSOLT AMBRUS
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 27, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
DATED: APRIL 27, 2004
APPEARANCES:
WENNIE LEE FOR THE APPLICANT
STEPHEN GOLD FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
WENNIE LEE
BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR
NORTH YORK, ONTARIO FOR APPLICANT
MORRIS ROSENBERG
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
TORONTO, ONTARIO FOR RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20040427
Docket: IMM-2534-03
BETWEEN:
ZSOLT AMBRUS
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
Email this Content