Date: 20020924
Docket: IMM-5144-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 999
BETWEEN:
RASIM HALILI, ELIDA HALILI,
BLEDAR HALILI, SARA HALILI
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
HENEGHAN J.
[1] Mr. Rasim Halili, his wife, Elida Halili, their son Bledar Halili and daughter Sara Halili (the "applicants") seek judicial review pursuant to the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, as amended of a decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "Board"). In its decision, dated October 5, 2001, the Board determined that the applicants were not Convention refugees.
[2] The applicants are Albanian nationals. Mr. Rasim Halili, the principal applicant, based his claim for Convention refugee status upon membership in a particular social group, that is former police officers in Albania. The claims of his wife and children are based on his claim.
[3] In its decision, the Board concluded that the principal applicant was not a police officer or alternatively, if he was a police officer, he had not been a police officer in Albania during the time in question, that is between 1990 and 1998. It appears that the Board based its conclusion in this regard primarily upon its assessment of the documentary evidence submitted by the principal applicant, in particular his police identification card.
[4] The applicant argues, among other things, that the Board erred in law by rejecting an official document in the absence of evidence to support its conclusions as to its invalidity. The applicant here relies on the decision in Ramalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (January 8, 1998), Doc. IMM-1298-97 (Fed.T.D.) where the Court said at paragraph 6, as follows:
In this instance, the Board challenged the validity of the birth certificate without adducing any evidence in support of its contention and, clearly, the matter of foreign documents is not an area where the Board can claim particular knowledge. That, in my view, constitutes a reviewable error on the part of the Board.
[5] In the present case, the Board purported to rely on evidence that the forging of official documents was widespread in Albania. Although there is a footnote referring to such evidence in the reasons, the Tribunal record does not contain any evidence in support of this conclusion by the Board. Furthermore, the record discloses no evidence that the Board has particular knowledge or expertise in the validity of documents emanating from Albania.
[6] In my opinion, the Board committed a reviewable error when it rejected the principal applicant's identification card in the absence of evidence tending to show its invalidity.
[7] The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted panel for consideration.
[8] No question for certification arises from this application.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted panel for consideration.
There is no question for certification.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 24, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5144-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Rasim Halili and others v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: Thursday, September 19, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE HENEGHAN
DATED: September 24, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Michael F. Battista FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Stephen Jarvis FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Michael Battista FOR APPLICANT
Toronto, Ontario
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content