Date: 20050503
Docket: IMM-4253-04
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, MAY 3, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MARTINEAU
BETWEEN:
MARCELO BLADIMI SOL FLORES
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (the Board), dated April 8, 2004, wherein it found the applicant not to be a "convention refugee" nor a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27 (the IRPA) and accordingly rejected his application for protection.
[2] The conclusion that the applicant lacked credibility and that his story is a complete fabrication is the rationale behind the whole decision. In fact, the Board did not believe that the applicant was kidnapped, beaten and tortured, and found that the applicant had not satisfied his burden of establishing that he has a well-founded fear of persecution based on his membership in a particular social group.
[3] Here, the Board indicated in clear and unmistakable terms why it did not believe the applicant. The negative inferences drawn by the Board are not just based on an analysis of the applicant's mother's declaration, but on a number of implausibilities and inconsistencies flowing from the interview notes taken by an examining officer at the Port of entry (POE), the applicant's Personal Information Form (PIF) and the applicant's testimony which relates to essential elements of the applicant's claim.
[4] One inconsistency, in particular, is of note. The applicant said, in his interview at the POE, that he was kidnapped because he is part of a group that works for helping poor people in a church. Then, in his PIF, he changed his story, saying he was kidnapped by poor people because his family was wealthy. I find this inconsistency was rightly considered by the Board and justifies its finding on credibility in the case at bar. I am unable to accept the applicant's counsel's suggestion that there was a translation error or some kind of misunderstanding. In my opinion, this is not a minor inconsistency and it affects the whole of the applicant's claim since it relates to one of its essential elements.
[5] In the case at bar, the numerous inconsistencies could reasonably lead to a finding of a general lack of credibility. For example, the applicant stated that his mother received the first threatening phone calls in January, 2002 but according to his mother's story, she first received the said phone calls in November, 2001. The Board also found it implausible that the applicant's family would still be in Jucuapa where they could be persecuted since they own a house in San Salvador which is well out of harms way. These inconsistencies support the Board's general conclusion.
[6] As for the Board's use of the applicant's mother's declaration, the Board was entitled to consider the said declaration without giving it any weight. In my view, this finding is clearly not unreasonable. However, the finding that the applicant's story is not credible does not make the mother's story any more credible either.
[7] The Board also made a reasonable comment when it said that the applicant should have tried to avail himself of state protection. In my opinion, the general finding of a lack of credibility coupled with the fact that the applicant did not attempt to obtain state protection allowed the Board to skip the analysis of state protection.
[8] Despite the noble efforts made by his counsel at the hearing, the applicant did not persuade me that the Board based its findings on an extensive "microscopic" examination of issues irrelevant or peripheral to the applicant's claim.
[9] Consequently, I find that the Board's decision is not patently unreasonable. Counsel agree that this case does not raise a question of general importance and none shall be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review of the decision of the Board, dated April 8, 2004 be dismissed.
"Luc Martineau"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-4253-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MARCELO BALDIMI SOL FLORES v. M.C.I.
DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 28, 2005
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MARTINEAU
APPEARANCES BY:
Modechai Wasserman FOR THE APPLICANT
Ladan Shahrooz FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mordechai Wasserman FOR THE APPLICANT
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT