Ottawa, Ontario, June 22, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mentor Tola is a young Albanian citizen, who claims to fear members of a neighbouring family, who had allegedly entered into a blood feud with his own family. According to Mr. Tola, this feud had its genesis in a land dispute. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected his claim, finding that his story was not credible.
[2] Mr. Tola now seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision, asserting that several of the Board’s factual findings were patently unreasonable. He further submits that the Board erred in refusing to give weight to his documentary evidence.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I am not persuaded that the Board’s decision was patently unreasonable. As a consequence, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
The Tola Family’s Prior Ownership of the Disputed Land
[4] The Board provided very brief reasons for its decision. A review of those reasons discloses that the primary reason for the Board’s failure to believe Mr. Tola’s story resulted from a discrepancy in his evidence regarding the family’s prior ownership of the disputed property.
[5] In Mr. Tola’s Personal Information Form (or “PIF”), he stated that the land had been “restored” to his family in the early 1990’s, whereas in his oral testimony, he affirmed that the family had never owned the land in question prior to being given it by the government in 1992.
[6] Mr. Tola argues that it was clear from his PIF that he did not know all of the details of the history of the dispute between the families, and that he would be attempting to get additional information about it before his refugee hearing. As a consequence, he says, it was patently unreasonable for the Board to seize on what was really a minor discrepancy in his evidence to find that his story was not credible.
[7] I do not agree that this was a minor discrepancy. The conflict resulting from the alleged land dispute and the ensuing blood feud were the centerpiece of his claim, and thus his testimony on this issue was clearly of central importance.
[8] Moreover, Mr. Tola’s PIF specifically states that the land was “restored” to his family. It was after this statement that he went on to say in the PIF that he did not know all of the details of the dispute, beyond what he had already stated, suggesting that he did in fact know about the restoration of the property.
[9] Finally, and most importantly, when asked about this discrepancy at the hearing, Mr. Tola did not offer the explanation now being advanced, and say that he had obtained further clarification of the issue after completing his PIF. Rather he testified that he had not noticed the error when he reviewed the PIF prior to signing it. This explanation was considered by the Board and rejected.
[10] In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that this finding was patently unreasonable.
The Failure to Mention the Land Dispute or Blood Feud to the Immigration Officer
[11] A second reason given by the Board for disbelieving Mr. Tola’s story was that at the time that he made his inland refugee claim, Mr. Tola made no mention of either a land dispute or a blood feud.
[12] A review of the Immigration Officer’s notes discloses that when he was asked why he was seeking refugee protection in Canada, Mr. Tola provided quite a lengthy and detailed description of his having allegedly been attacked by his neighbours, of the aftermath of the attack, and of the ensuing conflict between his family and their neighbours. Nowhere in this narrative is there any mention of a land dispute. Indeed, when the Immigration Officer asked Mr. Tola why he had been attacked by his neighbours, he said that he did not know.
[13] Mr. Tola’s story of a land dispute does not surface until some three weeks later, when he completed his PIF. In these circumstances, I see nothing unreasonable in the Board’s finding that this called Mr. Tola’s credibility into question.
[14] It is true that the Board was in error in finding that Mr. Tola did not mention the blood feud to the Immigration Officer, as the Officer’s notes contain a clear reference to there allegedly being a blood feud between the two families. However, given the other problems with Mr. Tola’s story, I am not persuaded that this error, by itself, provides a sufficient foundation for setting aside the Board’s decision.
Robbery as a Motive for the Attack
[15] The Board also erred in stating that Mr. Tola told the Immigration Officer that his attackers were trying to rob him. In fact, Mr. Tola stated that the police had suggested robbery as a possible motive for the attack. However, this is not a material error as whether it was Mr. Tola who raised the possibility of robbery as a motive for the attack, or the police who had suggested it, the point was that Mr. Tola never mentioned the issue of the land dispute in his interview with the Immigration Officer as a motive for the attack.
The Board’s Treatment of the Documentary Evidence
[16] Given that the Board did not believe Mr. Tola’s story of having been targeted in a blood feud, it was not unreasonable for the Board to choose to give little weight to his documentary evidence.
Conclusion
[17] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[18] Neither party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No serious question of general importance is certified.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4571-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: MENTOR TOLA v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 21, 2007
APPEARANCES:
|
Micheal Crane
|
|
|
Kristina Dragaitis |
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
MICHEAL CRANE Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario
|
|
|
JOHN H.SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario |
|
|
|
|