What is the substance of the Minister's position that the applicant should not have been believed?

The substance of the Minister's position is that the applicant should not have been believed because of the clear deficiencies in her evidence on the subject of her address in Colombo and the presence of family in that city. The Minister relies on authority which says that where a claimant is shown to have lacked credibility in one respect, the balance of that claimant's evidence can be put to one side. The following passage from Sheikh v. Canada 1990 CanLII 8017 (FCA), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, (1990), 112 N.R. 61, is apposite: [para8] I would add that in my view, even without disbelieving every word an applicant has uttered, a first-level panel may reasonably find him so lacking in credibility that it concludes there is no credible evidence relevant to his claim on which a second-level panel could uphold that claim. In other words, a general finding of a lack of credibility on the part of the applicant may conceivably extend to all relevant evidence emanating from his testimony.