Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Status in Canada

Convention Refugees

Vinda v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

IMM-774-01

2002 FCT 594, Rouleau J.

24/5/02

14 pp.

Application for judicial review of IRB Refugee Division (Board) decision applicant not Convention refugee-- Applicant, citizen of Democratic Republic of Congo, member of opposition group Union pour la démocratie et le progrès social (UDPS), allegedly arrested, incarcerated, tortured and forced into labour--Board concluded applicant's evidence regarding membership in UDPS not credible--Applicant failed to file letter from Toronto chapter of UDPS confirming membership in organization--Letter subsequently obtained but not considered by Board--Hearing took place December 6, 2000; decision reserved at close of hearing; decision dictated in chambers December 6, 2000; written reasons signed and released January 30, 2001--Main issue whether Board under obligation to consider further evidence provided by applicant December 18, 2000 or was Board functus officio after dictating its reasons on December 6, 2000, and before signature on January 30, 2001; whether Board committed any other reviewable error justifying Court's intervention-- Application allowed--Nothing in evidence binding Board until signing reasons January 30, 2001--Board violated principle of natural justice--Board incorrectly assumed Congolese seeking refugee protection in Canada could quickly obtain letter confirming membership from Canadian branch of UDPS--Lengthy process as Canadian Executive of UDPS refusing to issue letter until confirmation obtained from Congo headquarters--In neglecting to acknowledge or even comment on letter received December 18, 2000, Board acted unfairly and committed reviewable error--Documentary evidence supported applicant's fear and apprehension with respect to returning to Congo--Decision rendered only when written reasons signed: Tambwe-Lubemba v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 264 N.R. 382 (F.C.A.).

 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.