Liu v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-3143-96
Gibson J.
29/8/97
9 pp.
Application for judicial review of CRDD decision applicant, Protestant citizen of China who came to Canada for fear of religious persecution, not Convention refugee-Hearing before CRDD took place on three separate dates spread over one year-CRDD panel assisted at first two sittings by one Refugee Claim Officer (RCO), and at third sitting, by different RCO-Decision turned on credibility-CRDD failed to confront applicant with some of inconsistencies and provide opportunity to respond-In spite of F.C.T.D. case law interpretation to contrary, neither Gracielome v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), 9 Imm L.R. (2d) 237 (F.C.A.) nor Owusu-Ansah v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), 98 N.R. 312 (F.C.A.) standing for proposition CRDD's failure to identify inconsistencies in testimony and provide opportunity to respond necessarily amounting to reviewable error-Change in RCOs between second and third hearing dates meant RCO assisting CRDD at last hearing date limited in capacity to identify inconsistencies-In circumstances, while would have been preferable for CRDD to have drawn to applicant's attention to all inconsistencies in testimony on which it might rely, failure to do so neither constituted breach of rules of natural justice nor error of law-Applicant and counsel had been given notice CRDD concerned about inconsistencies-Onus on applicant to make out case-Had assistance of counsel and was in position equal to CRDD to identify further inconsistencies-All of CRDD's findings reasonably open to it-Application dismissed-Question of responsibility of CRDD to identify inconsistencies in testimony and to confront applicant with those inconsistencies so he may reply serious question but not certified as conclusion limited to very specific facts of case.