Date: 20010508
Docket: IMM-3807-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 446
Between:
Guyguy Tshika KISUNGU
Applicant
And:
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] The applicant seeks to have the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Refugee Division") dated June19, 2000, set aside. The Refugee Division dismissed the applicant's claim for refugee status.
[2] The applicant, born on November 12, 1975, is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He fled his country on November 7, 1999, and arrived in Canada on November 9, 1999. He claimed refugee status the following day, claiming to have a well-founded fear of persecution due to perceived political opinions.
[3] The determination of the Refugee Division is found on pages 1 and 2 of its decision and reads as follows:
After a careful analysis of all the evidence in the light of the definition, we find that the claimant is not credible because we found his testimony on key aspects of his claim to be implausible and, when confronted, the explanations he gave the panel were not judged satisfactory for the following reasons: ....
[4] The only argument raised in the application for judicial review is that the Refugee Division failed to consider all the evidence submitted by the applicant to support the merits of his claim. In particular, the applicant claims that on
April 20, 2000, he filed some documents with the Refugee Board, specifically the death certificate of Ms. Nsele Mpia, who he claims was his aunt, and a government diploma presumably issued by the ministry of education in his country. The death certificate is dated March 23, 2000, and states that Ms. Mpia died on October 28, 1999.
[5] According to the affidavit of Ms. France Pérusse, a secretary employed by the federal justice department, the documents were filed on April 25, 2000. It should be noted that at the end of the hearing held on April 13, 2000, the Refugee Division reserved its decision. As previously mentioned, the decision was rendered on June 19, 2000.
[6] The applicant argues that the Refugee Division reached its decision without considering the documents he filed on April 20, 2000. He states that the documents were so significant that the Refugee Division was required to refer to them in its decision. In other words, the Refugee Division's failure to refer to those documents implies that it disregarded them.
[7] In my view, the applicant's argument is unfounded. I would point out, once again, that the Refugee Division dismissed the applicant's refugee claim because he was found lacking in credibility. That finding is not challenged in any way by the applicant. Furthermore, according to the relevant case law, the Refugee Division is deemed to have considered all the evidence in the record, even though it did not specifically mention the documents that were filed or refer to all of the arguments put forward by the parties in its decision. In Kassogue v. M.E.I., A-973-92, May 3, 1995 (F.C.), Madam Justice Trembly-Lamer stated the following on pages 1 and 2 in her decision:
The applicant submitted that the Refugee Division failed to consider all the evidence before it since it did not specifically mention the documents in its reasons.
It has been recognized on many occasions that mentioning one piece of evidence is not equivalent to ignoring the remainder of the evidence.
In the reasons for decision, the Refugee Division stated a number of times that it considered all the evidence in reaching its conclusion. To require the tribunal to mention every document in its reasons for decision would place an excessive burden on it. Nothing in this file shows me that it ignored any of the evidence.
[8] As previously indicated to Ms. Brochu, counsel for the Minister, the Refugee Division's assertion that it considered all the evidence does not in any way strengthen the presumption that all the evidence was in fact considered. In my view, the presumption exists whether or not this fact is specifically mentioned in the Refugee Division's decision. The issue in every case is whether the Refugee Division failed to consider some of the evidence, having regard to the evidence submitted and reasons for its decision.
[9] In this case, the applicant failed to satisfy me that the Refugee Division disregarded some of the evidence and, more specifically, the documents that were filed on April 20, 2000. The death certificate dated March 23, 2000, merely states that Ms. Nsele Mpia died on October 28, 1999. It is evident, on the face of the document itself, that the doctor signed the certificate on the basis of other documents that he examined. He did not specify in any way that he personally pronounced her dead.
[10] As Ms. Brochu pointed out, the purpose of the certificate is not to indicate how and under what circumstances Ms. Mpia died. Since the Refugee Division made a finding that the applicant was not a credible witness, it did not fail to consider evidence by not specifically mentioning the certificate in its decision. As for the government diploma, it could not be of great significance given the Refugee Division's adverse finding of credibility.
[11] To summarize, I am of the opinion that the Refugee Division's failure to specifically refer to the documents that were filed on April 20, 2000, in its decision does not amount to a failure to consider relevant evidence.
[12] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
Marc Nadon
Judge
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 8, 2001
Certified true translation
Sophie Debbané, LL.B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-3807-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: GUYGUY TSHIKA KISUNGU v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 2, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER BY NADON J.
DATED MAY 8, 2001
APPEARANCES:
EVELINE FISET FOR THE APPLICANT
ISABELLE BROCHU FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
EVELINE FISET
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT