Date: 20040628
Docket: IMM-4165-03
Citation: 2004 FC 889
BETWEEN:
MAURICE INNOCENT MPIANA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated May 5, 2003, wherein the Board found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act).
[2] Maurice Innocent Mpiana (the applicant) is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the DRC) who claims to fear persecution because of imputed political opinions and because of his membership in a particular social group as the nephew of Symphorien Tshibanda (Symphorien). The applicant also claims to be a person in need of protection.
[3] The Board found that the very basis of the applicant's claim was not credible. Indeed, the applicant's alleged fear of persecution is entirely based on the relationship between his uncle Symphorien and Rashidi which has allegedly developed while the two men were studying together in the 1980s. The Board noted that Symphorien was born in 1971 and that according to the documentary evidence, Rashidi was either eighteen or in his twenties at the time of his death on January 16, 2001. In light of this documentary evidence, the Board concluded that Rashidi was either born in 1981 or in 1983 and with such a large age difference, the Board found it implausible that the two men could have become friends at school. The applicant argued that the Board disregarded the possibility that perhaps Rashidi was in his late twenties when he died in 2001. However, the applicant submitted absolutely no evidence to support this interpretation of the facts. Consequently, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that the Board's finding on this point is unreasonable. It is important to remember that the Board is a specialized tribunal capable of assessing the credibility of the evidence to the extent that its inferences are not unreasonable and its reasons are expressed clearly and comprehensibly (see Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 130 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.) and Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)). The Board also found that the evidence did not suggest that the applicant's uncle was so close to Rashidi that he would be suspected of having participated in the assassination of Kabila. Indeed, the applicant testified that he had at most seen Rashidi once and was unable to describe what he looked like despite the fact that he lived with Symphorien in Lubumbashi. Consequently, I find that the Board had sufficient grounds to doubt the legitimacy of the relationship between Symphorien and Rashidi.
[4] The Board found that no credible evidence was presented to corroborate the applicant's allegation that his two brothers and a cousin had disappeared following a raid at his home. In fact, the Board noted that the applicant indicated in his Personal Information Form (PIF) that his missing brothers and cousin lived in Lubumbashi. Furthermore, the Board rejected exhibits R-3(i) and R-3(j) because they did not contain sufficient information to corroborate the applicant's allegation that his brothers and cousin had disappeared. I do not find that the Board was unreasonable in its evaluation of this aspect of the applicant's claim. The Board is entitled to evaluate the evidence as a whole and in light of the contradiction in the PIF and the vague letters submitted as exhibits R-3(i) and (j), the Board was entitled to find that this allegation was not credible.
[5] Finally, the Board noted that the applicant also claimed to fear persecution in the DRC because of his Rwandan physiognomy. The Board rejected this element of the applicant's claim because he had not established in what way this physiognomy would make him a target for the authorities of the DRC. According to the transcripts of the hearing, the applicant stated many times at the hearing that he also feared persecution because of his Rwandan physiognomy. However, he never explained to the satisfaction of the Board how his Rwandan physiognomy put him at risk of persecution. I do not find that the Board's conclusion on this point was patently unreasonable, i.e. clearly irrational.
[6] In response to the Board's questions, the applicant could provide no satisfactory explanation for these inconsistencies and implausibilities, which were central to the applicant's claim because they put into question the very basis of his fear of persecution (Parnian v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1995), 96 F.T.R. 142). The Board clearly explained its reasons for doubting the applicant's credibility on the basis of these discrepancies and I am satisfied that the Board committed no patently unreasonable error in finding that the applicant was not credible.
[7] For all the above reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 28, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4165-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: MAURICE INNOCENT MPIANA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 27, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: June 28, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Michael Crane FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Lorne McClenaghan FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michael Crane FOR THE APPLICANT
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario