Federal Court Decisions

Date: 19971212

Docket: IMM-71-97

BETWEEN:

     BLENDI PIRI (a.k.a. EDLIRAN YAZI BUXHELI),

     Applicant,

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR ORDER

DUBÉ J:

[1]      This application is for a review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Board") dated December 10, 1996, wherein it was determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.

[2]      The applicant is a citizen of Albania who based his fear of persecution if he were returned to Albania on two incidents which occurred before the end of the communist regime then in power in that country. The communist regime in Albania collapsed in 1992 and was replaced by a government based on democratic principles. Despite this drastic change in the country's political structure, the applicant claims that the new Albanian police ("the Shik") beat him up in March 1994 presumably on account of his former anti-communist activities. The Board found it implausible that the applicant would continue to be a political victim under the new democratic regime and found the applicant not to be credible.

[3]      The applicant claims that the Board disregarded relevant sources of evidence, more particularly press clippings to the effect that the present secret police in Albania are not substantially different from the former secret police. The other piece of evidence allegedly ignored by the Board is a medical report filed after the hearing in which a Canadian doctor states that the physical condition of the applicant, upon examination by him later in Canada, appears to be "consistent with the applicant's history of torture in Albania".

[4]      The mere fact that written reasons of the Board do not refer to all the evidence which was introduced does not constitute a reviewable error of law. The Federal Court of Appeal has already ruled in Hassan v. M.C.I.¹ that "the fact that some of the documentary evidence is not mentioned in the Board's reasons is not fatal to its decision". Moreover, there is a presumption that a tribunal has considered all the documents filed before it².

[5]      At the hearing of this matter before me, counsel for the applicant raised the possibility that the medical report may not have been placed before the Board since it did not specifically refer to it. However, that report was faxed to the Board after the hearing along with other documents. At the first page of its decision, the Board quotes as follows:

Written submissions by counsel were due on January 2, 1996. However, certain RCO documentation had been requested by the panel and not received by that date. Consequently, following delivery of this information, counsel provided the panel with her written submissions on January 26, 1996, followed by the RCO's observations. Counsel gave further submissions on March 5, 1996, together with additional documentation, and followed it with further submissions on May 30, all of which were reviewed. Subsequently, counsel requested of the panel that they reopen the hearing, to which the panel agreed. As the matter was being rescheduled, counsel, on July 18, 1996, withdrew her request for a reopening of the hearing.

(my emphasis)

[6]      From this reading, it can be reasonably assumed that all the documents in question were received and reviewed. As to the medical report, it refers to injuries flowing from an alleged March 1994 incident that the panel did not believe took place.

[7]      The Board found from the totality of the evidence that the applicant lacked credibility. The Board surely cannot be faulted for not accepting the version of the applicant to the effect that he was harassed and tortured by a police force, established by the new democratic regime, on account of his anti-communist activities dating back to the communist regime. As stated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Aguebor v. M.E.I.³, "there is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony".

[8]      Accordingly, this application for judicial review is dismissed.

    

     Judge

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

December 12, 1997

__________________

¹      (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.).

²      See Moskvitchev v. M.C.I., IMM-70-95, December 21, 1995 (F.C.T.D.).

³      (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.).