CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Immigration Practice |
Ray v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-2818-99
Tremblay-Lamer J.
9/6/00
7 pp.
Application for judicial review of CRDD decision dismissing motion to set hearing date for Convention refugee claims --Initial positive determination subsequently reconsidered and vacated by CRDD on basis applicants had misrepresented majority of factual elements in respective claims--CRDD also concluded insufficient remaining evidence upon which favourable refugee determination was or could have been made--CRDD concluded effect of last decision to vacate and annul initial positive determination and that Board functus officio with regard to their refugee status--Application dismissed--Under Act, ss. 69.2(2) and 69.3(4), (5), CRDD may vacate and reconsider determination made under Act--Effect of allowing application to vacate not in any way creating new claim or new referral or reviving initial referral--CRDD, when acting pursuant to Act, s. 69.2(2), has jurisdiction to determine person not refugee--When CRDD making determination, evidence limited to evidence considered in initial claim: Guruge v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 160 F.T.R. 297 (F.C.T.D.)--Where, as here, no remaining credible evidence upon which panel can make positive determination, can certainly be inferred that applicant not Convention refugee--Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, ss. 69.2(2) (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 18; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 61), 69.3 (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 18; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 62), (4), (5).