Date: 19981126
Docket: IMM-1524-98
BETWEEN:
HABOUBACAR JAZY SOULEMANE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD A.C.J.:
PROCEEDING
[1] This is an application pursuant to section 82.1 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. (1985), ch. I-2 to review and set aside a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board"), dated March 12, 1998.
[2] The application for judicial review is based on the following grounds:
| 1. That the Board failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe. |
| 2. That the Board erred in fact and in law in making its decision. |
3. That the Board acted without and/or acted beyond its jurisdiction.
4. That the Board erred in law in making its decision whether or not the error appears on the face of the record.
5. That the Board acted in other ways that the were contrary to law.
6. That the Refugee Division based its decision on erroneous findings of the fact that it made in a perverse and capricious manner without regard to the material before it.
7. That, as a result of the above errors, the Refugee Division erred in law by failing to apply the definition of Convention Refugee.
FACTS
[3] The applicant was born in Niamey, Niger and entered Canada as a foreign student on September 11, 1993. On February 21, 1995, he claimed refugee status in Canada.
[4] By a decision rendered on December 27, 1995, the Board recognized the Convention refugee status of the applicant.
[5] On the July 10, 1996, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made an application for leave to commence vacation proceedings against the applicant under subsection 69.2(2) of the Immigration Act1. The application was based on the grounds that the applicant obtained his refugee status by fraudulent means, untrue indications on important facts, and by the suppression or dissemblance of important facts which were used to obtain the said status.
[6] On the 31 July 1996, the Assistant Deputy Chairperson of the Board granted leave to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make an application to the Board to reconsider its decision rendered on December 27, 1995, which found the applicant to be a Convention refugee.
[7] The vacation hearing took place on February 17, 1997 in Montréal, and by video conference between Montréal and Ottawa on June 16, June 17 and September 24, 1997.
ISSUES
[8] At the hearing of this application, the applicant challenged the Board"s decision to vacate the Board"s decision on the basis of two grounds: first, did the manner in which the Board conducted itself during the hearing raise a reasonable apprehension of bias or taint the fairness of the proceedings; and, secondly, did the Board fail to consider the totality of the evidence and improperly rely on the expert report of Mr François-Pierre Déry, analyst of documents of identity for Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
ANALYSIS
[9] With respect to the argument submitted by the applicant on the reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of procedural fairness, the adjournment of the hearing on the February 17, 1997 due to the illness of a member of the panel, the notice sent by facsimile postponing the hearing scheduled on June 16, 1997 from 9:30 a.m. to 13:30 p.m. the same day due to equipment malfunction, and the Board ruling that a news reporter could not attend as an observer, do not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the panel.
[10] The failure of the applicant to receive full disclosure of an expert report on June 17, 1997, and consequently, a reasonable opportunity to examine it, did not result in any prejudice to the applicant since the Board acquiesced in the applicant"s request for an adjournment to September 24, 1997, and ordered counsel for the Minister to produce a full list of documents within one week.
[11] It appears on the facts that a further expert report filed by the Minister"s representative was served on counsel for the applicant twenty (20) days before the hearing was to resume on September 24, 1997, all in accordance with the Rules.
[12] Therefore, I find on the basis of the record before me that the applicant has not established a reasonable apprehension of bias or procedural unfairness on the part of the Board.
[13] With respect to the claim that the panel did not examine the totality of evidence, Mr Justice Huggessen indicated in Florea2:
| "The fact that the Division did not mention each and every one of the documents entered in evidence before it does not indicate that it did not take them into account: on the contrary, a tribunal is assumed to have weighed and considered all the evidence presented to it unless the contrary is shown. As the tribunal's findings are supported by the evidence, the appeal will be dismissed." |
[14] The following findings made by the panel in its decision were supported by the evidence:
| "De l"ensemble de la preuve constituée d"au-delà de 80 documents de toute nature et entre autres des témoignages de messieurs Jacques Beaulieu, gérant d"un programme d"immigration pour le MCI à l"ambassade du Canada en Côte d"Ivoire, de monsieur François Déry, analyste de documents identité et de monsieur André Munch, ex-employé à la retraite du laboratoire de science judiciaire et de médecine légale du ministère de la Sécurité publique du Québec et maintenant spécialiste expert en documents à titre privé, il appert que l"intimé a effectivement utilisé des faux documents pour obtenir son admission à l"université de Sherbrooke, en septembre 1993, admission qui lui a valu l"émission d"un visa d"étudiant par les autorités canadiennes à Niamey.3 |
| Il appert de plus que, par la suite, l"intimé a fabriqué d"autres faux documents devant servir à d"autres personnes, sans compter ses tentatives d"admission aux universités Laval de Québec, Guelph en Ontario et Bishop à Lennoxville.4 |
| Il appert également que l"intimé avait menti lors de l"audience concernant la revendication de statut de réfugié qu"il avait logée après que les subterfuges précédemment mentionnés fussent apparus soit le 21 février 1995. Il avait alors prétendu, en réponse à la réponse 37 du Formulaire de renseignement personnels (FRP) qu"il avait complété et signé, qu"il avait été emprisonné, au Niger, en raison de ses opinions politiques et qu"un certain Colonel Bangnou Beido l"avait délivré et lui avait facilité sa fuite vers le Canada en lui fournissant le passeport nigérien, l"admission à l"Université de Sherbrooke de même que le visa d"étudiant émis par l"ambassade canadienne et en le faisant conduire incognito à l"aéroport. Il n"aurait personnellement aucunement participé aux démarches qui lui auraient fourni la "couverture" ourdie par le colonel Beido.5 |
| La preuve scientifique présentée par le requérant a démontré que l"intimé avait bel et bien signé lui-même les documents grâce auxquels il était venu le 11 septembre 1993 et revenu le 1er janvier 1994.6 |
| De plus, la preuve recueillie à l"audience démontre que contrairement aux prétentions de l"intimé, le Colonel Beido n"a jamais été en charge du camp militaire où l"intimé prétend avoir été incarcéré et que, de plus, les démarches effectuées auprès de l"ambassade canadienne n"ont pu l"être que par monsieur Haboubacar lui-même."7 |
[15] Therefore, it was open to the Board to conclude that the information contained in the application"s Personal Information Form (PIF) was false. In reaching its decision that the applicant"s Convention refugee status was obtained by fraudulent means, the Board did not rely only on the evidence of Mr. François-Pierre Déry, as stated in its reasons.
[16] The Board also concluded that there was no further evidence to support his application, under subsection 69.3 (5) of the Immigration Act8. In these circumstances, the panel was entitled to vacate the original decision granting the applicant Convention refugee status.
CONCLUSION
[17] This application for judicial review is dismissed.
____________________________
Associate Chief Justice
Ottawa, Ontario
November 26, 1998
__________________1 69.2(2) The Minister may, with leave of the Chairperson, make application to the Refugee Division to reconsider and vacate any determination made under this Act or the regulations that a person is a Convention refugee on the ground that the determination was obtained by fraudulent means or misrepresentation, suppression or concealment of any material fact, whether exercised or made by that person.
2 Florea v. Canada (Minister of Employment and immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598.
3 Decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Refugee Division) dated on March 12 1998, Application Record at 5.
8 69.3(5) The Refugee Division may reject an application under subsection 69.2(2) that is otherwise established if it is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the determination was obtained by fraudulent means or misrepresentations, suppression or concealment of a material fact, there was other sufficient evidence in which the determination was or could have been based.