Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Lin v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )

IMM-4684-94

Gibson J.

28/9/95

8 pp.

Application for judicial review of decision of Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) applicant not Convention refugee-Applicant citizen of People's Republic of China (PRC)-Claiming refugee status by reason of alleged well-founded fear of persecution if required to return to PRC based on real or perceived political opinion-Applicant's family home threatened to be demolished due to construction of new international airport-No compensation or aid in relocating-Applicant speaking out publicly against family's eviction without compensation-Detained by government officials, accused of counter-revolutionary activities and being critical of government-Left PRC illegally as authorities searching for him-Applicant interviewed at port of entry in Canada by immigration officer, not invited to sign or initial notes of interview-CRDD relying on discrepancies between port of entry notes on one hand and narrative statement in applicant's Personal Information Form (PIF), oral testimony before CRDD on other hand-Counsel for applicant given five days' notice of CRDD's intention to consider port of entry notes, failed to subpoena author of notes, interpreter-Onus not on CRDD to make those persons available for examination at hearing-Not open to applicant to allege denial of right to natural justice and procedural fairness-Applicant providing rational explanation, essentially difficulties in interpretation, for discrepancies between story as recorded in port of entry notes and story as recorded in narrative and oral testimony-After giving benefit of doubt to claimant, CRDD could not reject applicant's claim for want of credibility evidenced by discrepancies between two versions of experiences in PRC-In doing so, CRDD violated principles of natural justice, fairness and denied applicant fair hearing-Application allowed-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 2(1) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 1; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 1).

 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.