Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20050915

Docket: IMM-10037-04

Citation: 2005 FC 1272

BETWEEN:

ROGER RAMOS AMAYA

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

PHELAN J.

[1]    The Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("IRB") denied the Applicant's claim for refugee status and protection. The RPD's decision was based on its finding of lack of credibility in the Applicant's story.

[2]    The standard of review for findings of credibility is patent unreasonableness. See Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 732 (F.C.A.) (QL). Contrary to the Applicant's position, the Court is not in as good a position as the RPD to assess the reasonableness of the Applicant's story.

[3]    The RPD made four critical findings related to credibility. The RPD held that it was not reasonable for the Applicant, working as a security guard for three years at a co-operative, not to know what was going into and out of the site. It was also not reasonable that the Applicant would not know why he had been detained for extended periods by his bosses; nor that he could not recall the names of other detainees; nor that he did not know what his job was at his second place of employment.

[4]    Simply put, the RPD did not accept the Applicant's story, a matter well within its jurisdiction. The reasons for not accepting the various parts of the story are cogent and logical.

[5]    There were also four areas of inconsistencies in the Applicant's testimony. While no particular inconsistency is sufficient, in itself, to ground a lack of credibility finding, the cumulative weight is sufficient to raise a legitimate concern about credibility.

[6]    The Applicant says that the RPD ignored evidence in making its credibility finding. In my view the RPD chose to accept some evidence over other evidence. None of the evidence said to be ignored is so compelling as to justify a finding that the RPD was unreasonable in its credibility conclusion - much less patently unreasonable.

[7]    Therefore, there is no basis on which this Court should intervene in the decision. The application will be dismissed.

[8]    There is no question to be certified.

"Michael L. Phelan"