Date: 20010202
Docket: IMM-5745-99
Citation: 2001 FCT 10
BETWEEN:
ARIF ISLAM
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) dated October 27, 1999 wherein the latter determined that Mr. Arif Islam (Applicant) was not a Convention refugee.
[2] The Applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, claimed refugee status, alleging that he fears persecution in his country because of his political opinions.
[3] On October 27, 1999, the Board refused the Applicant's claim on the basis that his story was not credible, in light of several inconsistencies in his oral testimony and with regard to several key documents filed in support of his claim.
[4] In spite of the arguments of Counsel for the Applicant, I am unable to find that the Board's findings were perverse, capricious or made without regard to the evidence adduced before it.
[5] Regarding the two different birth certificates, the one presented to the immigration officer upon arrival in Canada, and the other filed before the Board, after a careful review of the transcript, it is apparent that the Applicant's testimony was at the very least confusing and inconsistent. I find that the Board could only draw an adverse inference from it.
[6] With regard to the medical certificate dated June 4, 1998, respecting an incident during which the Applicant was attacked, the Board found that it "makes no sense" and "must thus be a forgery", considering that a large amount of medications was prescribed for minor injuries allegedly sustained by the Applicant, that the treatment was lengthy and the fact that the document did not mention where the Applicant had been treated. Although, I would have concluded otherwise, I am unable to find that this conclusion was not reasonably open to the Board.
[7] Again, concerning the medical certificate relating to the Applicant's 6-year-old son, the Board's conclusion that the medical certificate is a forgery was reasonably open to it from the evidence and there is no basis for the Court's intervention on this point.
[8] As to the comparison between the two medical certificates discussed above, the Board noted that the ink, the paper, the credentials and the layout were identical, and found that since the certificates came from different doctors, such similarities could not be the result of chance. Such a finding was reasonable from the evidence.
[9] Lastly, Counsel for the Applicant suggested at the hearing before this Court that the Board had directed the Applicant to limit his testimony to incidents taking place after 1998. He finds support for such assertion in Mr. Chalk's affidavit (Counsel for the Applicant at the time) which states:
| During the hearing, the Board indicated to the applicant, and to me, that it wanted to hear his testimony about the events immediately preceding his departure, so he did not testify about any events prior to January 1998.1 |
[10] After a careful review of the transcript, I found nothing that indicates that it was the case. On the contrary, the questions asked by the Board were general in nature and focussed on establishing the reasons why the Applicant left Bangladesh. The questions were not limited to events taking place only after January 1998. For example:
| BY PRESIDING MEMBER (to person concerned) |
| Q. Well, Mr. Islam, a very simple question has been asked. Why did you leave your country, you?2 |
| Q. But the question asked by your lawyer was why did you leave Bangladesh? It's a long answer now. Could you tell us the problems that you have experienced in your country, personal problems.3 |
[11] I have no reason to believe that the transcript does not reflect what happened at the hearing and that the Applicant was not treated fairly.
[12] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[13] Counsel for the Applicant asked that the following question be certified:
| If the Applicant's affidavit evidence as to what transpired in the hearing room differs from the transcripts of the proceedings, is the Applicant required to raise the issue of the Tribunal Record being incomplete, or is the onus on the Respondent to question the veracity of the Applicant's affidavit of a member of the Québec Bar? |
[14] The Court is not convinced that this is a serious question of general importance. This question turns on the specific facts of this case. Therefore, the Court will not certify the question.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 2, 2001.
__________________1 Application Record, Affidavit of David Chalk at p. 24.