Date: 19990518
Docket: IMM -1449-98
Between:
ALI TALEB, OLA TALEB, YMANE TALEB,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review from a decision by the Refugee Division ("the tribunal") that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
[2] The tribunal first dismissed the claim by the principal applicant on the ground that the latter was not credible. Secondly, it found that the principal applicant should be excluded from the scope of protection accorded to refugees pursuant to article 1(F)(b) of the Convention.
[3] Before discussing the question of exclusion, the tribunal ruled on the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons in the Convention.
[4] In the case at bar the tribunal noted contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions in his testimony as to the facts set out in the two P.I.F.s entered in evidence. In his first P.I.F., he stated that in July 1994 he was requested by the F.B.I. to organize the arrest, kidnapping and delivery to the U.S. authorities of the terrorist Hassan Ezzedine in return for $2 million and U.S. citizenship for himself and his family. In his second P.I.F. he only mentioned a proposal of surveillance, not kidnapping.
[5] The tribunal considered that the first P.I.F. was closer to the facts since it was supported by other documentary evidence which confirmed that the applicant had had the responsibility of organizing the kidnapping of the terrorist.
[6] It is for the Refugee Division, as a specialized tribunal, to assess the applicant's credibility. In the circumstances, there is no doubt that the latter's credibility was seriously comprised by his contradictions.
[7] It was entirely appropriate for the tribunal to choose the version it found the more credible, especially as that version was supported by the documentary evidence. In these circumstances, the Court is not authorized to interfere in the tribunal's assessment of the applicant's credibility.
[8] As to the application of article 1(F)(b) of the Convention, the tribunal found that it had to exclude the principal applicant from the definition of a refugee because it had "serious reasons for considering that he had committed a serious non-political crime outside the
country of refuge".1 This conclusion is based on the admission by the applicant in the first statement attached to his P.I.F., in which he set out all the details of the plan to kidnap the terrorist Hassan Ezzedine.
[9] The kidnapping of an individual is a crime punished by the Criminal Code in s. 279: such a crime is punishable by life imprisonment. Additionally, the attempt to commit the offence is itself an offence.2 Any attempt to commit an offence which may be punishable by life imprisonment is itself punishable by a maximum of 14 years.3 The crime of kidnapping is also a crime which is a basis for extradition under the Extradition Act.4 There is thus no question as to the seriousness of the offence.
[10] So far as the political nature of the offence is concerned, the Federal Court of Appeal in Gil v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)5 indicated that in order to decide whether there was a political aspect to an offence its purpose had to be considered and the Court should determine whether it was committed for political reasons or personal ones such as monetary gain or a settling of accounts. It appeared from the facts in evidence in the case at bar that the applicant's purpose was clearly to take advantage of a good opportunity to make some money and to be able to live in the U.S.
[11] I accordingly conclude that the tribunal made no error of law or fact in determining that the applicant was excluded from the definition of a refugee on the ground that it had serious reasons to think that the applicant committed a serious crime of ordinary law under article 1(F)(b) of the Convention.
[12] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[13] Counsel for the plaintiff submitted questions for certification which were dismissed by the Court on the ground that they were not relevant or that they had been the subject of a decision by the Federal Court of Appeal.
| Danièle Tremblay-Lamer JUDGE |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 18, 1999.
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT No.: IMM-1449-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ALI TALEB, OLA TALEB, YMANE TALEB v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: TREMBLAY-LAMER
DATED: MAY 18, 1999
APPEARANCES:
| DAN BOHBOT FOR THE PLAINTIFF |
| MARTINE VALOIS FOR THE DEFENDANT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
DAN M. BOHBOT FOR THE PLAINTIFF
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE DEFENDANT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
__________________1 Tribunal's record, at p. 10.