Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19990730


Docket: IMM-4900-98

BETWEEN:

     MOHAMED MAHAMUD ABBAS


Applicant


- and -


THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

[1]      In spite of a well articulated argument by counsel for the applicant, I do not think this is a case for intervention by the Court. At issue are factual and credibility findings.

[2]      The factual findings are not without support in the evidence. The panel"s reference to improvement of human rights conditions is to provide some background as to why the panel thought the applicant was released from detention. However, it is clear that the main reason for concluding that he was released was that a modicum of calm was restored after the July 1997 riots. I see no justification for interfering with this finding.

[3]      The applicant refers to excerpts from the documentary evidence which supports the applicant"s case. However, the weighing of documentary evidence is for the panel and not for this Court on judicial review.

[4]      The applicant said his uncle obtained his release from detention. However, the applicant did not explain how his uncle found out he was in detention and how he succeeded in obtaining his release. The applicant said he did not ask his uncle although there was opportunity to do so and the question was obvious.

[5]      The panel found this unsatisfactory. I can see no error in this conclusion. The panel found the applicant was not photographed or questioned in detention as he did not refer to these incidents in his Personal Information Form or during his direct examination. Again this is an assessment to be made on the specific facts of a particular case, and is within the scope of the panel"s jurisdiction and is not to be redetermined by this Court

[6]      The panel concluded that in spite of his arrest and detention after the July 1997 riots the applicant was really of no importance to the authorities such as to establish an objective basis for a well-founded fear of persecution. This conclusion was open to the panel on the evidence and should not be interfered with by this Court.

[7]      Subsection 2(3) of the Immigration Act does not arise on the facts of this case.

[8]      The judicial review will be dismissed.

     "Marshall Rothstein"

     Judge

Toronto, Ontario

July 30, 1999

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-4900-98
STYLE OF CAUSE:                      MOHAMED MAHAMUD ABBAS
                             - and -
                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                            

DATE OF HEARING:                  THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY:              EVANS J.A.

DATED:                          FRIDAY, JULY 30, 1999

APPEARANCES:                      Mr. Raoul Boulakia

                                 For the Applicant

                             Mr. Goodwin Friday

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              Raoul Boulakia

                             Barrister and Solicitor
                             45 Saint Nicholas Street
                             Toronto, Ontario
                             M4Y 1W6
                                 For the Applicant

                              Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                 For the Respondent

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date:19990730

                        

         Docket: IMM-4900-98

                             Between:

                             MOHAMED MAHAMUD ABBAS

     Applicant

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                        

     Respondent

                    

                            

        

                                                                             REASONS FOR ORDER

                            

 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.