Toronto, Ontario, March 15th, 2005
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein
BETWEEN:
KEVIN MEDLEY
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for clarification and precision)
[1] The Applicant is a 29 year-old citizen of Jamaica who claims a well-founded fear of persecution due to his membership in the official opposition party in Jamaica, the Jamaica Labour Party ("JLP"). The Applicant claims he joined the JLP in 1994, attended meetings every two months and helped drive voters to the polls.
[2] The Applicant claims he was threatened by members of the opposing party, and that if he returns to Jamaica he will be "slain by thugs" for his critical comments of the People's National Party ("PNP"). He says he had no internal flight alternative because Jamaica is a small island and there is nowhere else to go.
[3] The Applicant left Jamaica on July 20, 1998, travelling under a farm workers program and arrived in Toronto the same day. He married and his wife made a sponsorship claim which was rejected. His wife is now pregnant and she has no other family in Canada aside from her father.
[4] The Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") rejected his claim on the basis of lack of credibility and plausibility. It found that, a) he had only the most cursory knowledge about JLP policies, b) that he claimed he voted in an election in 1994, while the election was in 1993 when he would have been too young to vote, and c) that he delayed his application for refugee status while in Canada and only applied when his wife's sponsorship was rejected. The Board also found it implausible that he would work for three years in Jamaica while allegedly under a death threat.
[5] Applying the standard of review for findings of credibility of patent unreasonableness, (see Umba v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 17 (QL)) I cannot find that the Board's decision was patently unreasonable.
[6] Nor do I accept the Applicant's submissions that the Board ignored the totality of the evidence, lacked an evidentiary basis for its findings or made an unreasonable assessment of the evidence.
[7] While the Applicant has offered some alternate explanations for his behaviour, which led to the Board's findings, such as the low level of education of the Applicant as a source for the confusion of dates, this is not enough to allow this Court to overturn the decision in issue.
[8] As my colleague Snider J. in Sinan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 188 (QL) observed:
The Applicants have put forward alternative explanations for many of the Board's findings. When the standard of review is, as here, one of patent unreasonableness, it is not sufficient to present an alternative line of reasoning - even where that may present a reasonable explanation. What the Applicants must do is to point to a conclusion of the Board that is not supportable in any way on the evidence. The Applicants have failed to persuade me that any of the most significant findings were patently unreasonable. I cannot conclude that the decision as a whole is patently unreasonable.
[9] On the basis of the foregoing reasoning, this application cannot succeed.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that this appeal be dismissed.
"K. von Finckenstein"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2307-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: KEVIN MEDLEY
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 15, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: von FINCKENSTEIN J.
DATED: MARCH 15, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Christina Gural FOR THE APPLICANT
John Provart FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Christina Gural
Robert Gertler and Associates FOR THE APPLICANT
Etobicoke, Ontario
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney-General of Canada