Date: 19990429
Docket: IMM-1066-98
Ottawa, Ontario, April 29, 1999
Before: Pinard J.
Between:
Dieudonne NKOUNKOU MPASSI,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
OF CANADA,
Respondent.
ORDER
The application for judicial review from a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division on February 16, 1998, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
| JUDGE |
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
Date: 19990429
Docket: IMM-1066-98
Between:
Dieudonne NKOUNKOU MPASSI,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
OF CANADA,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] The application for judicial review is from a decision rendered by the Convention Refugee Determination Division ("the Refugee Division") on February 16, 1998, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee as defined in s. 2(1) of the Immigration Act. Although duly served, the applicant was not present or represented at the hearing.
[2] The Refugee Division found that the applicant had not established that there was a reasonable possibility he would be persecuted on his return to the Congo because the militia whom he said he feared had been driven from the country by the new government. The tribunal also considered that possible reprisals against Laris for opposing Nguesso were entirely hypothetical. Finally, the Refugee Division concluded that the fact that the applicant had helped the party now in power when he was in the Congo could not work against him.
[3] In the absence of clear proof that relevant and significant evidence was not considered by the Refugee Division, it must be assumed that the tribunal assessed all the evidence before it. Further, it is usually open to the Refugee Division to attach greater weight to the documentary evidence submitted by the hearing officer than to the testimony of an applicant (see M.E.I. v. Zhou (July 18, 1994), A-492-91). In the case at bar the Court was not persuaded of such ignorance of the evidence by the Refugee Division, whose decision seemed to be fully supported by the documentary evidence. In the circumstances, the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, seemed to me to have been reasonable and this Court's intervention is not warranted (see Aguebor v. Canada (1993), 160 N.R. 315).
[4] The application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.
| YVON PINARD JUDGE |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 29, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT No.: IMM-1066-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: DIEUDONNE NKOUNKOU MPASSI |
| - AND - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 23, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: APRIL 29, 1999
APPEARANCES:
| No one For the applicant |
| Sherry Rafai-Far for the respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
No one for the applicant
Morris Rosenberg for the respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada