Date: 20000107
Docket: IMM-1453-99
BETWEEN:
SUKHVIR SINGH BOYAL,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ, J.
[1] This application for judicial review attacks the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Refugee Board") dated February 17, 1999, wherein it was determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.
[2] The applicant submits that he was denied a fair hearing due to the poor interpretation provided by the interpreter during the hearing. He alleges that it is the Refugee Board"s responsibility to ensure that the interpretation is of a proper standard and that failure to do so constitutes a breach of natural justice. Finally, the applicant contends that the interpreter"s errors and omissions throughout the hearing were prejudicial since they harmed his credibility.
[3] In support of his submission, the applicant filed the affidavit of an accredited interpreter, fluent in both the Punjabi and English languages. She reviewed the audio tapes and determined that there were many material errors of interpretation. She lists some 20 errors.
[4] It is clear from the jurisprudence on the issue of interpretation that in order to succeed in cases where the accuracy of the interpretation is in question there must be evidence of prejudice to the applicant as a result of the errors in question.1 There is no evidence to that effect from the applicant.
[5] There is no indication on the record that either the applicant or his counsel raised the issue of the adequacy of interpretation in the course of the hearing. In fact, the hearing lasted two days, January 7 and February 5, 1999, with two different interpreters. On the first day, the interpreter was Ms. Sikka and on the second day the interpreter was Mr. Ahmad. On both days the presiding member ensured that the interpreter and the claimant understood one another. Counsel for the applicant was present on both days and never raised an objection.
[6] It is apparent from reading the decision of the Refugee Board that members of the Board were not confused about any of the alleged errors of interpretation. In fact their decision is based squarely on the lack of credibility of the applicant. The alleged errors of interpretation are unrelated to the basic reasons relied upon by the Refugee Board to make their credibility findings.
[7] Obviously, it is not difficult for another interpreter after a hearing, such as the affiant testifying in support of the applicant, to make a detailed analysis and a microscopic examination of the interpretation of a previous interpreter and to find faults with it. An interpreter at a hearing has to work live and off the cuff in the exchange of questions and answers. He or she does not have the luxury of selecting the most precise wording. His or her task is to ensure that both sides understand one another in the course of the give and a take of a hearing. In other words, oral interpretation cannot be as exact as literal translation. Again, in the instant case, there were two different interpreters on two separate days. No one appears to have been unsatisfied with their work at the time.
[8] Consequently this application for judicial review is dismissed. There are no questions of general importance to be certified.
(Sgd.) "J.E. Dubé"
Judge
January 7, 2000
Vancouver, British Columbia
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
IMMIGRATION DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-1453-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: Sukhvir Singh Boyal
v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: January 6, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER OF Dubé, J.
DATED: January 7, 2000
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Mishal Abrahams For the Applicant |
| Ms. Emilia Pech For the Respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kang and Company
| North Delta, BC For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney
| General of Canada For the Respondent |
__________________
1 See for example Mila v. M.C.I. (October 29, 1993) T-2991-92 (F.C.T.D.), Mosa v. M.E.I. (1993), 154 N.R. 200 (F.C.A.), Tung v. M.E.I. (1991), 124 N.R. 388 (F.C.A.) and Banegas v. M.C.I. (June 30, 1997) IMM-2642-96 (F.C.T.D.).