Rahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
- Citation
- 2020 FC 37
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 13 January 2020
- Posture
- Judicial Review of RAD Decision Under IRPA / Final Judgment (application Dismissed)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 13 January 2020
- Posture
- Judicial Review of RAD Decision Under IRPA / Final Judgment (application Dismissed)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Federal Court held the RAD's Decision was not internally inconsistent: the RAD recited the Applicant's evidence about his New York lifestyle to address cultural background but did not make a finding that the Applicant was gay, and therefore the RAD's credibility conclusion was not shown to be unreasonable; the judicial review application was dismissed.
Court disposition
Application for judicial review dismissed.
Orders
- Application for judicial review dismissed.
- No question was certified for appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
MD MAHBUBUR RAHMAN
Applicant Counsel: Michael CraneTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent Counsel: Sally ThomasAmounts and remedies
- Applicant Age: 47
- Years Lived in New York: 17
03
Procedural history
Posture
Judicial Review of RAD Decision Under IRPA / Final Judgment (application Dismissed)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the RAD's credibility finding regarding the Applicant's sexual orientation was internally inconsistent
- 02
Whether the RAD complied with the obligation to consider cultural background under the Sexual Orientation and Gender Guidelines
- 03
Whether the RAD made an actual finding of the Applicant's sexual orientation
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant argued the Decision is internally inconsistent because paragraphs 35 and 37 indicate acceptance that he is gay while paragraph 54 concludes otherwise; he contended the inconsistency warrants allowing the judicial review.
- Respondent
- Respondent argued there is no inconsistency because paragraphs 36 and 37 merely relate the Applicant's evidence about his lifestyle in New York as part of the RAD's obligation under the Sexual Orientation and Gender Guidelines to consider cultural background, and that the RAD did not make a finding that the Applicant led a gay lifestyle; the RAD uses the term 'finding' when it intends to make findings.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Immigration and Refugee Board Sexual Orientation and Gender Guidelines
Obligation to consider claimant's cultural background and evidence under the Sexual Orientation and Gender Guidelines
- 02
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, s 72(1)
Statutory right to judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the IRPA
- 03
Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division and Federal Court reasoning
Findings of fact must be clearly articulated; use of explicit language (eg, 'finding') indicates where conclusions are made
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Federal Court held the RAD's Decision was not internally inconsistent: the RAD recited the Applicant's evidence about his New York lifestyle to address cultural background but did not make a finding that the Applicant was gay, and therefore the RAD's credibility conclusion was not shown to be unreasonable; the judicial review application was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- No question was certified for appeal
- The RAD's practice of using the word 'finding' to denote factual findings was noted by the Court
Court disposition
Application for judicial review dismissed.
- Application for judicial review dismissed.
- No question was certified for appeal.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 13 January 2020
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 13 January 2020
Rahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-01-13 Neutral citation 2020 FC 37 File numbers IMM-2192-19 Decision Content Date: 20200113 Docket: IMM-2192-19 Citation: 2020 FC 37 Ottawa, Ontario, January 13, 2020 PRESENT: Madam Justice Simpson BETWEEN:
MD MAHBUBUR RAHMAN Applicant and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS (Delivered orally from the Bench in Toronto, Ontario on December 12, 2019) I. The Proceeding [1] This application is for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated March 14, 2019 [the Decision], in which the panel member [the Member] dismissed the Applicant’s appeal, finding that the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection, which was based on a fear of persecution in Bangladesh for being gay, was not credible. This application was brought pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the IRPA]. [2] The Applicant is a 47-year-old male citizen of Bangladesh. In February 2001, he flew to New York hoping to settle there. He got a one month visa, overstayed it, and started working as a sales representative. He lived in New York City for 17 years and described his gay lifestyle there. Yet he made a fraudulent claim for asylum in the US based only on an alleged political opinion. [3] The RPD rejected his identity as a gay man and in the Decision, the RAD upheld that finding. II. The Issue [4] The Applicant says that the Decision is internally inconsistent in that it appears to say in paragraphs 35 and 37 that the RAD accepts that the Applicant is gay and yet concludes otherwise in paragraph 54. However, I am not persuaded that there is an inconsistency.
In paragraphs 36 and 37 the RAD is relating the Applicant’s evidence about his lifestyle in New York. The RAD provided this description to meet its obligation under the Sexual Orientation and Gender Guidelines to consider the Applicant’s cultural background. [5] It is clear that the RAD did not make a finding that the Applicant led a gay lifestyle in New York because it does not use the word “finding”. When the RAD makes findings throughout the Decision it does so in clear terms using the word “finding”. [6] No question was posed for certification for appeal. JUDGMENT IN IMM-2192-19 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. "Sandra J. Simpson" Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2192-19 STYLE OF CAUSE: MD MAHBUBUR RAHMAN v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: December 12, 2019 JUDGMENT and reasons: SIMPSON J. DATED: JANUARY 13, 2020 APPEARANCES: Michael Crane For The Applicant Sally Thomas For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Michael Crane Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.