Taher v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-265-98
Rothstein J.
25/11/98
5 pp.
Application for judicial review of CRDD decision denying applicants Convention refugee status on ground applicants had internal flight alternative (IFA) in Pakistan-Application allowed-Panel did not have proper regard for psychologi cal assessment in arriving at its conclusion: Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 30 Imm. L.R. (2d) 226 (F.C.T.D.) and Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.)-In circumstances of case, panel had obligation to go further than to observe psychological report considered-Psychological report thorough and detailed, and clear that applicants' health would deteriorate if they returned to Pakistan-Inexplicable why panel provided no clue as to why not persuaded by psychological report-Where evidence specific and important to applicant's case, prima facie credible and persuasive, panel has some obligation, even very briefly, to explain why not persuaded by that evidence.