Date: 19980916
Docket: IMM-1757-97
Between:
TAMARA VASSILIEVA
VLADIMIR VASSILIEV
VITALI VASSILIEV
Applicants
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application under section 82.1 of the Immigration Act for judicial review of a decision dated April 16, 1997 in file numbers M95-10033/10162/10935 by Ghislain Lavoie and Jacques Lasalle, members of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
[2] In their application, the applicants put forward a number of grounds, including the allegation that the Refugee Division disregarded an important document filed in evidence by the applicants, the affidavit of Vladir Bashkeev. The male applicant also submitted that the panel did not give proper weight to the female applicant"s testimony about her daughter.
[3] The panel did not err by failing to refer to each and every one of the documents filed by the applicants. It is settled law that the panel may refer only to the documents that it considers relevant in making its decision.
[4] In this regard, counsel for the respondent submitted Songue v. M.C.I., IMM-3391-95, July 26, 1996. The Court said:
. . . an applicant"s lack of credibility affects the weight that will be given to the documentary evidence filed with the Refugee Division:
. . .
On reading the Refugee Division"s decision, I cannot conclude that it ignored the orders for the mission and the notifications sent to the applicant when it made its decision. The Refugee Division need not specifically mention that it is rejecting a piece of documentary evidence when it does not believe the circumstances that are said to have given rise to that evidence.
[5] Contrary to the male applicant"s opinion, it is not an apparent error for the panel to prefer the documentary evidence to the applicants" testimony, as was held in Omorogbe v. Secretary of State of Canada , IMM-2724-93, dated May 9, 1994. Mr. Justice Rothstein stated:
I do not see any legal error in the panel"s assessment of the documentary evidence or in the fact that it preferred the documentary evidence over that of the applicant.
[6] In another decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, Xhou v. M.E.I., A-492-91, July 18, 1994, the Court again stated:
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.
[7] On the issue of internal flight alternative, the Refugee Division made a detailed assessment of both the oral and documentary evidence, and that assessment is clearly not unreasonable.
[8] In Owusu c. M.C.I., IMM-2422-94, May 4, 1995, the Court stated:
While the Board did not make explicit findings regarding implausibility or contradictory statements regarding the applicant"s evidence, the Board did find that the applicant"s testimony was not consistent with the documentary evidence that it relied upon in making its decision. Despite the fact the Board could have been clearer from the perspective of assessing the change in country conditions as they relate to a well-founded fear of persecution, the Court is of the opinion that no reviewable error was committed by the Board.
[9] On internal flight alternative, in Sathiyanathan Thirunavukkarasu v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] 1 F.C. 589, at page 595, the Court stated:
. . . in order to prove a claim to Convention refugee status, as I have indicated above, claimants must prove on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility that they will be subject to persecution in their country. If the possibility of an IFA is raised, the claimant must demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility of persecution in the area alleged to constitute an IFA.
[10] In Marchukov v. M.C.I., IMM-1672-97, March 5, 1998, Mr. Justice Nadon stated:
. . . [the Refugee Division] found that there was an internal flight alternative, in northern Kazakhstan where citizens of Russian nationality make up about 70% of the population.
. . .
In view of the evidence in the record, the Refugee Division"s finding that an internal flight alternative was available in Kazakhstan is not at all unreasonable. I therefore cannot find that the Refugee Division made an error.
Given my decision on the internal flight issue, there is no need to consider the other ground submitted by the Refugee Division in support of my decision to dismiss the claims, namely the principal applicant"s credibility.
[11] Also, in Rasaratnam v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1992] 1 F.C. 706, the Federal Court of Appeal stated that the onus is on a refugee claimant to show on a balance of probabilities that there is a possibility of persecution throughout the country, including the part of the country where an internal flight alternative is available.
[12] For all these reasons, the application is dismissed.
[13] Counsel for the applicants suggested the following question:
[TRANSLATION] When the claimant"s evidence contains an uncontradicted affidavit that could directly corroborate certain facts alleged by the claimant, can an implausibility finding with respect to those facts validly be based on general documentary evidence?
[14] Counsel for the respondent does not wish this question to be certified.
[15] Having considered all the circumstances of this case, and considering all the grounds in support of the decision, no question will be certified.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 16, 1998
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-1757-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: TAMARA VASSILIEVA ET AL. v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL
DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 26, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER OF BLAIS J.
DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Michel Le Brun FOR THE APPLICANT
Caroline Doyon FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michel Le Brun FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada