Federal Court Decisions

                                                                                                                                             Date: 20020322

                                                                                                                                     Docket: IMM-493-01

                                                                                                                   Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 302

Between:

                                           ZAHRA MOUMIN FARAH and

                                                AMINA AHMED DAHIR

                                                                                                                     Applicants

                                                              - and -

                                       THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                                                  AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                    Respondent

                                                REASONS FOR ORDER

PINARD J.:

[1]         The applicants seek judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated January 17, 2001, in which the Board determined they were not Convention refugees as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.

[2]         The applicants, Zahra Moumin Farah (the principal applicant), born in Hargueisa, Somalia, on January 30, 1949, and her daughter, Amina Ahmed Dahir, born in Djiboutiville, on July 21, 1983 are both citizens of the Republic of Djibouti. They claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution due to their race or nationality, as members of the Midgan tribe and because of their membership in a particular social group.

[3]         The Board determined the applicants not to be Convention refugees essentially because of their lack of credibility.

[4]         With respect to credibility and the assessment of evidence, it is well-established that this Court may not substitute its decision for that of such a tribunal, when, like in the case at bar, the applicants have failed to prove that the tribunal's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (see paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7).

[5]         Indeed, after reviewing the facts of this case, the transcripts as well as the arguments of both parties, I find that the Board clearly and unequivocally determined the applicants not to be credible and offered very detailed reasons for its decision which was in several instances supported by concrete documentary evidence. The Board also cited inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities in the applicants' oral testimony, their Personal Information Form ("PIF") as well as in the documentary evidence. In fact, the Board is entitled to draw negative credibility inferences from the unsatisfactorily explained contradiction between the PIF and the applicant's oral testimony (Grinevich v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1997] F.C.J. No. 444 (T.D.) (QL)). In my opinion, the inferences of the Board, which is a specialized tribunal, were reasonable (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)). In the circumstances, therefore, it is my view that the finding by the Board that the applicants were not credible effectively amounted to a finding that there was no credible evidence on which the tribunal could allow their claim for refugee status (see Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 at 244 (F.C.A.)).

[6]         More specifically, concerning the applicants' submission that the Board failed to properly apply the Gender Guidelines, I must first emphasize that the fact that some of the documentary evidence is not mentioned in its reasons is not fatal to the Board's decision. In the case at bar, the Board did make reference to the documentary evidence relied upon in its decision and did mention that of the Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender Related Persecution dated November 25, 1996. Furthermore, the Board particularly took into account that the principal applicant is illiterate and that men in Djibouti do not always share with their family the details of their outside activities. However, after a detailed assessment of the evidence, the Board concluded that this was insufficient to establish that the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution. I am not persuaded that the Board failed to properly apply the Guidelines or that the Board's assessment of the documentary evidence was unreasonable. In my opinion, the conclusions reached by the Board were reasonable considering the fact the applicants were found not to be credible.

[7]         For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

                                                                         

       JUDGE

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

March 22, 2002