Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                                                                                                                  Date: 20050505

                                                                                                                        Docket: IMM-928-04

                                                                                                                        Citation: 2005 FC 631

BETWEEN:

                                                        TANSIOCO III, ARTURO

(a.k.a. Tansiaco III, Arturo Regala)

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                                        REASONS FOR ORDER

PHELAN J.

[1]                The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Panel") concluded that Arturo Tansioco III, a 27 year old citizen of the Philippines was not a refugee or a person in need of protection. This is his judicial review of that decision.

[2]                The Applicant said that he was wanted by the police in Manila for having caused a riot. The police allegedly called him at his home, threatening him and telling him to surrender. He went into hiding. The police supposedly came to his home but he had gone into hiding by then.


[3]                The Panel found his account of events to be highly improbable. The Panel could not accept that police would telephone a suspect a number of times rather than simply going to his home and arresting him. The Panel also found it difficult to believe that a person, wanted by police, could easily slip through Philippine passport control or would even expose themselves to that risk and travel under their proper name.

[4]                This is straight forward plausibility finding. As such, the standard of review is patent unreasonableness.

[5]                A plausibility finding engages one in a consideration of common sense and rationality. In addition the Board has some familiarity with exit control processes in various countries.

[6]                In my view, this is not a case where the Panel had to layout all its knowledge of police and passport control procedures in order to apply common sense to a story. It would be incumbent of the Applicant to explain why such organizations would not behave in a "common sense" manner - as it is understood in this country.

[7]                There is nothing patently unreasonable in the Panel's conclusions.


[8]                For these reasons, the judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.

              (s) "Michael L. Phelan"            

Judge


                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                            NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          IMM-928-04

STYLE OF CAUSE:                  TANSIOCO III, ARTURO

                                                 

                                                                                           

                                                                                                                   Applicant

                                                    - and -

                                                     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                                                     AND IMMIGRATION   

                                                     

                                                                                                            Respondent                               

PLACE OF HEARING:                    TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                      WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005

REASONS FOR ORDER:              PHELAN J.

                                                                               


                                                                              

DATED:                                     May 5, 2005

APPEARANCES:     

Ms. Belinda Bozinovski                                                            FOR THE APPLICANT

Ms. Mary Matthews                                                                 FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

The Immigration Assistance Centre

Toronto, Ontario                                                              FOR THE APPLICANT                    

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada     FOR THE RESPONDENT


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.