Date: 20020704
Docket: IMM-1433-01
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 736
Between:
KHAN Chudhary Raseb
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 February 28, 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 applicant is a Pakistani national originally from Sardhok, Punjab Province. He alleges that he suffered persecution at the hands of the police and the goons of the Party of People Party as a result of his political involvement with the Party of Muslin League.
The Board determined the applicant not to be a Convention refugee because he was not a credible witness.
The applicant first argues that the Board erred by affording the weight it did to the contradictions and general lack of credibility in his testimony. 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 (see Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and that its reasons are set out in "clear and unmistakable terms"(see Hilo v. M.E.I., 15 Imm.L.R. (2d) 199 (F.C.A.)).
In the instant case, the Board clearly and unequivocally determined the applicant not to be credible and offered several examples in its decision where the applicant contradicted himself after being given the opportunity to explain obvious discrepancies in his testimony. Consequently, after examining the evidence as well as the transcript of the hearing, I am not persuaded that the inferences of the Board, which is a specialized tribunal, could not reasonably have been drawn.
Further, the applicant argues that the Board failed to consider and discuss the personal documents he submitted. The Federal Court of Appeal in Florea v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (June 11, 1993), A-1307-91, confirmed that unless the contrary is shown, the Board is assumed to have considered all the evidence presented to it. 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. Also, 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 (see 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 case at bar, the Board found that the applicant's warrant of arrest filed under Exhibit P-7 was implausible seeing as though it did not coincide with the reason given for the issuance of such a warrant. In light of the foregoing, I do not feel that evidence was ignored by the Board and its decision appears to be well-founded both on the applicant's testimony and the documentary evidence. I am of the impression, that given the circumstances 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.)). Consequently, I feel that the conclusions reached by the Board were reasonable and justified.
Furthermore, I cannot accept the argument by the applicant stating that the Board ignored his explanations regarding the purpose of the rally held in July 2000. To support his allegations, the applicant states at paragraph 4 of his affidavit that "the rally of the month of July 2000, although intended to help the villagers was also seen as an opportunity by the party to promote our political beliefs and recruit more members". As indicated at page 3 of the decision, the Board states that « as the claimant was invited to define or clarify the nature of this activity, he clearly stated, "it was just to collect donation for Baluchistan and Sind" » . As a result, I do not feel that the Board erred in its conclusion seeing as though the true objective of the rally was indeed to "collect donations".
For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 4, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1433-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: KHAN Chudhary Raseb v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 5, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: July 4, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Styliani Markaki FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Mario Blanchard FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ms. Styliani Markaki FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario