Date: 20020705
Docket: IMM-1457-01
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 747
Between:
AMRIK SINGH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated March 13, 2001, in which the Board determined he was not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
The claimant, Amrik Singh, is a citizen of India. He claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of imputed political opinion. He alleges a fear of persecution at the hands of the police.
The Board determined the applicant not to be a Convention refugee by concluding that the applicant is not credible. The following reasons were noted:
- Due to the overwhelming documentary evidence describing the end of the ideologically driven militant movement, the Board found it implausible that, in January 2000, armed militants would come to the claimant's farm demanding food and shelter.
- The applicant failed to include in his narrative the fact that, when he was questioned by the police on January 21, 2000, they accused him of having weapons.
- The fact that the applicant did not provide the answers or the questions allegedly asked by the police confirmed that the incident of January 2000 did not happen.
- The Board found that the applicant could not corroborate satisfactorily his allegation that he was tortured as he described.
- The Board found that the documentary evidence indicates several avenues where one can seek help and therefore, if the applicant and his brother had suffered as they alleged, they could have sought help.
The applicant argues that the Board misinterpreted the facts and the evidence when determining that he was not credible. It is settled that with respect to credibility and the assessment of evidence, this Court may not substitute its decision for that of such a tribunal, when the applicant has failed to prove that the tribunal's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7).
Generally, the Board is entitled to infer that an applicant is not credible because of implausibilities in his or her evidence as long as its inferences are not unreasonable (Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 163 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and that its reasons are set out in "clear and unmistakable terms" (Hilo v. M.E.I. (1991), 15 Imm.L.R. (2d) 199 (F.C.A.)). After reviewing the evidence, I am not persuaded that the inferences of the Board, which is a specialized tribunal, could not reasonably have been drawn.
The applicant also seems to suggest that the Board misused documentary evidence which resulted in erroneous conclusions. It has been established and confirmed by this Court that the Board is a specialized tribunal that has jurisdiction to examine and appreciate documentary evidence. Unless the contrary is shown, however, the Board is assumed to have considered all the evidence presented to it (Florea v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (June 11, 1993), A-1307-91). It is also well established that in the absence of clear proof that a relevant and significant piece of evidence was not considered by the Board, there is a presumption that the panel assessed all of the evidence before it (Hassan v. M.E.I. (1992), 147 N.R. 317 at 318 (F.C.A.)).
Furthermore, the following was confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Zhou v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (July 18, 1994), A-492-91:
We are not persuaded that the Refugee Division made any error that would warrant our interference. The material relied on by the Board was properly adduced as evidence. The Board is entitled to rely on documentary evidence in preference to that of the claimant. There is no general obligation on the Board to point out specifically any and all items of documentary evidence on which it might rely. . . .
In the present case, after having read the oral and written testimonies as well as reviewed the evidence, I do not feel that evidence was disregarded by the Board as the decision is well founded on both the applicant's testimony and the documentary evidence. I am therefore of the impression that given the circumstances that the Board's perception that the applicant is not credible in fact amounts to a conclusion that there was no credible evidence to justify his claim to refugee status (Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 at 244 (F.C.A.)).
Given the above findings and conclusions, it will not be necessary to consider the other arguments raised by the respondent.
For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 5, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1457-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Amrik Singh v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 11, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: July 5, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Roman Karpishka FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Michel Synnott FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Roman Karpishka FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario