Date: 20011126
Docket: IMM-4861-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1290
Before: Nadon J.
BETWEEN:
Alejandro Esteban SUZANO RAMOS
Plaintiff
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] The plaintiff is challenging a decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Refugee Division") on August 17, 2000 that he is not a Convention refugee.
[2] The plaintiff, who was born on October 14, 1978, is a citizen of Peru. He claims a well-founded fear of persecution for his alleged political opinions and membership in a particular social group.
[3] The Refugee Division dismissed the plaintiff's refugee status claim on the ground that he was not credible. At p. 5 of its reasons the Refugee Division stated the following:
[TRANSLATION]
As the claimant was not credible the tribunal concludes that he did not discharge the burden of showing that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Peru on any of the grounds in the definition of a "Convention refugee".
[4] the plaintiff alleged that the Refugee Division made the following errors:
1. the Refugee Division erred in concluding that the plaintiff did not want to show it his passport in order to [TRANSLATION] "keep information from it";
2. the Refugee Division erred in concluding that it was not plausible for the terrorist group Tupas Amaru ("TA") to have tried to recruit the plaintiff in February 2000 because since July 1998, he was no longer at university;
3. the Refugee Division erred in concluding that if, as the plaintiff claimed, he was being sought, he could not have left his country without difficulty.
[5] In my opinion, these objections do not need to be considered at great length. The plaintiff testified before the Refugee Division that he decided to leave his country when an arrest warrant was issued for him, following the interception of his telephone conversation on February 17, 2000 with a TA representative who was trying to recruit him. According to the plaintiff, the secret police, the Dincote, tapped this telephone call and then decided to arrest him. Consequently, the Dincote came to his house to arrest him on February 19, 2000. That in my opinion is the cornerstone of the plaintiff's refugee claim. At p. 5 of its reasons the Refugee Division dealt with these events as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
When questioned about why the TA wanted to recruit him in particular on February 17, 2000, he answered he thought it was because of his great knowledge of the university. However, he had not been there since July 1998. Further, according to his allegations the TA infiltrated the universities. It is therefore not plausible in such circumstances that it would recruit a person who was no longer attending.
On February 19, 2000 he said the members of Dincote came to his residence to search the house and threatened him with death. He said they had an arrest warrant and written charges. At one point in his testimony he said they did not leave the warrant at his home, and at another that they left the papers in question with his mother. He was not credible.
[6] In my opinion, in view of all the evidence, the Refugee Division's finding that the plaintiff was not credible in respect of these events was in no way unreasonable.
[7] The Refugee Division also concluded that the plaintiff testified in a hesitant manner. I have read and re-read the plaintiff's testimony given at the hearing of July 14, 2000 and can only conclude that this finding by the Refugee Division was completely reasonable.
[8] In my opinion, the plaintiff's argument only shows that he disagrees with the interpretation of the facts arrived at by the Refugee Division. Needless to say, that does not suffice for the Court to intervene. As the plaintiff lacked credibility, the Refugee Division could properly dismiss his claim.
[9] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
|
Marc Nadon Judge |
O T T A W A, Ontario
November 26, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: IMM-4861-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: ALEJANDRO ESTEBAN SUZANO RAMOS v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 27, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NADON J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 26, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Brigitte Poirier FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Guy Lamb FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Brigitte Poirier FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada