CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Immigration Practice |
Ozdemir v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
A-604-00
2001 FCA 331, Evans J.A.
1/11/01
5 pp.
Appeal from dismissal of judicial review of Post-Claim Determination Officer's (PCDO) decision [[2000] F.C.J. No. 1522 (T.D.) (QL)] appellant not member of Post-Determination Refugee Claimants in Canada class if returned to Turkey--In addition to documents describing country conditions in Turkey for Kurdish people, appellant submitted three items of evidence not before Board: (1) letter from lawyer regarding interview with appellant's wife in Turkey, indicating she had told lawyer police had visited her home in 1997 to inquire about appellant, and had treated her and family roughly; (2) letter from village head man stating appellant's wife had told him of police visit; (3) newspaper photograph of 1995 demonstration appellant had stated in evidence to Board that he had attended--Appellant alleging PCDO's decision should be set aside under Federal Court Act, s. 18.1(4)(d) because based on erroneous finding of fact i.e. appellant would not be at risk of persecution if returned to Turkey; or (2) breached duty of fairness because PCDO not providing adequate reasons therefor--Appeal dismissed--(1) Ample evidence to justify conclusion appellant not at risk if returned to Turkey, if totality of material before PCDO considered--(2) If PCDO required by duty of fairness to give reasons for decision, reasons sufficed to discharge that duty--Decision-makers not bound to explain why did not accept every item of evidence before them--Much depends on significance of that evidence when considered in light of other material on which decision based--Reviewing court will not infer from failure to specifically address particular item of evidence in reasons for decision that decision-maker must have overlooked it, if evidence in question of little probative value of fact for which intended, or if relates to facts of minor significance to ultimate decision--New evidence not of sufficient importance or probative value--Inappropriate to require PCDOs, as administrative officers, to give as detailed reasons for their decisions as may be expected of administrative tribunal--Answer to certified question: PCDO not required to comment on case specific documents that lack probative value, even if relate to applicant..