Toronto, Ontario, October 13, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE LAYDEN-STEVENSON
BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Despite the capable and articulate submissions of counsel for the applicant, I am not persuaded that the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board that Mr. Lew is not a Convention refugee should be set aside.
[2] Mr. Lew arrived in Canada on August 16, 1999, travelling on a Malaysian passport and a six-month visitor visa. He filed a claim for refugee status in November 2002. He claimed to have met and had a relationship with a young Muslim woman, in Malaysia, in January 1998. In June 1999, the couple moved in together and in July, they decided to marry. The young woman's father insisted that the applicant convert to Islam before the couple could register for marriage.
[3] Mr. Lew allegedly told the father that he did not want to become Muslim. The father, in turn, warned Mr. Lew that if he did not convert that he (the father) would report Mr. Lew to the police and Islamic authorities and that he would be arrested. Afraid of these threats, Mr. Lew bought a ticket to Canada. His girlfriend could not accompany him because her father had taken her passport. In August 1999, Mr. Lew left Malaysia for Canada. He kept in touch with his girlfriend who informed him that her father had in fact gone to the police and that if he returned to Malaysia, he would face arrest, be imprisoned and be forced to convert to Islam.
[4] The RPD disbelieved Mr. Lew's story. It found that there was insufficient credible evidence to support the claim. Its decision is premised solely on the credibility of Mr. Lew. It made a number of findings based on implausibilities as well as negative credibility findings arising from inconsistencies or omissions between Mr. Lew's personal information form (PIF) and his testimony at the hearing. It also found Mr. Lew's delay in leaving Malaysia and in making his refugee claim to be significant factors.
[5] The applicant claims that the board seriously misapprehended the evidence and, for that reason, the decision cannot be sustained. I agree that the board did make an error when it stated that it found it implausible that nothing had happened to Mr. Lew during the one month that he remained in Malaysia if, as he claimed, the police and authorities had been told about him. This finding is not supported by the evidence. In fact, the evidence is clear that the father allegedly reported Mr. Lew to the police only after he had arrived in Canada. The question therefore is whether this error is fatal. Mr. Lew claims that it colours the board's perception of him and that the other findings are therefore impugned. I disagree.
[6] The decision, in totality, provides ample reason for the board to dismiss the claim. The board found it implausible that Mr. Lew and the young Muslim woman lived together without the knowledge of her parents. In my view, having reviewed the transcript and Mr. Lew's responses to the board's questions, this finding was open to the board.
[7] Mr. Lew submitted three photographs of his girlfriend and the board found it implausible that after dating for more than one year and living together for at least six weeks that there would not be a single photograph of the couple together. It found Mr. Lew's explanation that they did not have a camera unsatisfactory. This inference is not so unreasonable as to warrant my intervention. (See: Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993) 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)).
[8] The board also disbelieved Mr. Lew because he did not satisfactorily explain a number of omissions in his PIF. It is not suggested that it is not open to the RPD to rely on such inconsistencies in assessing credibility. Specifically, Mr. Lew failed to mention in his PIF that: his girlfriend had sided with her father; her father had threatened to beat him physically; an arrest warrant had been issued against him; and the police had attended his sister's home asking as to his whereabouts. The board found his explanations suspect and did not believe him.
[9] Additionally, the RPD found Mr. Lew's explanation for the delay in making his claim to be unsatisfactory. He stated that he had hoped that the father would change his mind and consent to the marriage and that he was not aware of the refugee process. Given that the alleged agents of persecution were the police and Islamic authorities, it is not surprising that the board would choose to reject this explanation.
[10] In view of these findings, the error with respect to when the police were informed is not material to the result. The decision is sustainable on the other findings made by the board. My intervention is not warranted.
[11] Counsel did not suggest a question for certification and none arises on these facts.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
JUDGE
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-8169-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: LOCK HENG LEW
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October 13, 2005
AND ORDER BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Ann Crawford FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Lorne McClenaghan FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kranc & Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims Q. C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT