Date: 20050317
Docket: IMM-3675-04
Citation: 2005 FC 368
BETWEEN:
JASPAL SINGH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB), dated March 9, 2004, that the applicant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. (2001), c. 27 (the Act), or a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Act.
[2] Jaspal Singh (the applicant) is a citizen of India. He alleges that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in his country owing to his religion, membership in a particular social group and perceived political opinions.
[3] Owing to inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions, the IRB did not believe the applicant's story. The applicant essentially objects to the panel's assessment of the facts.
[4] After hearing counsel for the parties and reviewing the evidence submitted to the IRB, I am not convinced that the inferences drawn by this specialized panel could not reasonably have been drawn (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)). Moreover, the applicant did not convince me that the IRB rendered a decision based on an erroneous finding of fact, made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. (1985), c. F-7). Generally, the panel's conclusions seem to me to be based on serious evidence: the applicant's own testimony and the documentary evidence.
[5] As regards the argument that the IRB erred in law in its manner of assessing the medical certificate (P-4) and affidavit of the president of the Sikh temple (P-5), we should recall that, even if these documents tend to corroborate the applicant's allegations, it is the panel's duty to consider them in light of all the evidence, and that it is permissible for the panel to accord them little or no evidentiary weight if the applicant is otherwise not considered credible owing to inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions. By way of example, we need only refer to Danailov v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 1019 (F.C.T.D.) (QL), where Reed J. stated:
With respect to the arguments concerning the panel's findings on credibility, I read both the transcript and the Tribunal's decision before hearing counsels' submissions. I have now had the benefit of those submissions and could not conclude that the Tribunal's finding was other than entirely proper on the basis of the evidence before it. With respect to the assessment of the doctor's evidence, to find that that opinion evidence is only as valid as the truth of the facts on which it is based, is always a valid way of evaluating opinion evidence. If the panel does not believe the underlying facts it is entirely open to it to assess the opinion evidence as it did.
[6] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"YVON PINARD"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 17, 2005
Certified true translation
Magda Hentel
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3675-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: JASPAL SINGH
v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 8, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: March 17, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Michel Le Brun FOR THE APPLICANT
Ian Demers FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michel Le Brun FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada