Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-3912-96

     IMM-3912-96

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 LEAQUAT AHMED

B E T W E E N:

     LEAQUAT AHMED

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

RICHARD, J.:

     The applicant seeks to set aside a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated October 1, 1996, wherein it determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.

     The Board determined that "... the claimant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution. Major and relevant elements of evidence crucial to the claim are not credible since inconsistent with his affirmation that he left Bangladesh because of his political activities."

     The only issue raised by the applicant is the Board's finding of non-credibility.

     The Board based its finding on six conclusions which it listed and analyzed separately, one of which was not challenged by the applicant.

     It is well established that the Board is a specialized tribunal that has jurisdiction to draw inferences and to gauge credibility. Accordingly, the Court will not intervene unless the Board's inferences are so unreasonable as to warrant intervention. The burden rests on the applicant to show that the inferences drawn by the Board could not reasonably have been drawn.¹

     The applicant has not satisfied me that five of the six conclusions drawn by the Board could not reasonably have been drawn. These conclusions were supported by the evidence and were reasonably open to it. The last conclusion drawn by the Board concerns the applicant's delay in leaving Bangladesh. While the fact of the delay is documented in the evidence, the Board appears to have made no effort at the hearing to determine the reason for the delay. However, the remaining conclusions were reasonably open to it and are central to the applicant's claim. Accordingly, the Board's determination was one that was reasonably open to it.

     In these circumstances, the application for judicial review is denied.

"John D. Richard"

Judge

Toronto, Ontario

May 8, 1997

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                  IMM-3912-96

STYLE OF CAUSE:          LEAQUAT AHMED

                     - and -

                     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                     AND IMMIGRATION

DATE OF HEARING:          MAY 6, 1997

PLACE OF HEARING:          TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:      RICHARD, J.

DATED:                  MAY 8, 1997

APPEARANCES:

                     Mr. Ian R. J. Wong

                         For the Applicant

                     Mr. Kevin Lunney

                         For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

                     White, Wong & Associates

                     10th Floor

                     6 Adelaide Street East

                     Toronto, Ontario

                     M5C 1H6

                         For the Applicant

                      George Thomson

                     Deputy Attorney General

                     of Canada

                         For the Respondent

                     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                     Court No.:      IMM-3912-96

                     Between:

                     LEAQUAT AHMED

     Applicant

                         - and -

                     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                     AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

                     REASONS FOR ORDER

__________________

¹      Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315.