Date: 20000811
Docket: IMM-6143-99
BETWEEN:
MAHAMAT AHMAT
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division ("CRDD") dated November 2, 1999 wherein the CRDD determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Chad, arrived in Canada on April 26, 1998 and immediately made a Convention refugee claim. On October 20, 1998 the applicant appeared with counsel before a two-person panel of the CRDD. A Chadian/English interpreter assisted the applicant, but there were problems with interpretation and as a result, a de novo hearing was scheduled. That hearing took place before a one-person panel of the CRDD on June 22, 1999.
[3] At the new hearing, the applicant testified that his problems with the government of Chad were a result of family connections and his membership in the Arabe tribe. His cousin had lived in Libya for a number of years before returning to Chad in November 1997 and stayed with the applicant in N"djamena. One week after his cousin"s return, the Chadian political police, the "agence national de securité" ("ANS") arrived at the applicant"s home and arrested him and his cousin. They were taken to the Central Prison, separated, and the applicant was interrogated and accused of being a member of the armed opposition group known as the "FNT" (Front national du Tchad). The officers told the applicant that his cousin was an FNT supporter and had been gathering support for the FNT while in Libya. According to the applicant"s testimony, the officers demanded the names of the FNT operatives in Chad but the applicant did not know any and, consequently, the applicant was subjected to brutal interrogations for the duration of his imprisonment.
[4] On April 12, 1998 the applicant was able to escape from prison after his family bribed one of the security guards in order to secure his release. The whereabouts of his cousin are still unknown.
[5] The panel found that the applicant was not a Convention refugee and rejected the truthfulness of allegations made in support of his claim due to implausibilities and inconsistencies that arose from the applicant"s evidence. In its decision the panel explained that it rejected the applicant"s claim that his cousin was sought out as a perceived FNT agent and that the claimant was arrested because of his association with his cousin.
[6] The applicant first submits that the panel breached its impartiality and betrayed its objectivity by aggressively questioning the applicant, calling into question the veracity of the interpretation throughout the hearing, calling for an investigation into the interpreter without notifying counsel.
[7] A careful review of the transcript, in my opinion, does not indicate that the panel member questioned the applicant in an aggressivemanner. The panel member may have interrupted counsel for the applicant on a few occasions, however, I believe this was in an attempt to clarify any inconsistencies, unclear responses given by the interpreter and to essentially further the member"s understanding of the applicant"s claim.
[8] With respect to the allegation that the panel member called into question the veracity of the interpreter"s interpretation throughout the hearing, I disagree. Once again the transcript indicates that periodically the applicant was attempting to answer questions before the questions were duly translated, and as a result the panel member would interject advising the applicant to wait until the interpreter fully translated.
[9] I am satisfied that these incidents do not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, but rather, demonstrate a panel member carefully trying to gather and understand evidence adduced before her.
[10] With respect to the audit ordered by the panel member, I am of the view that given that the previous hearing before another panel had to be aborted due to concerns raised by counsel for the applicant regarding the quality and accuracy of the interpretation which took place, that it was prudent of the panel member to proceed with this verification. Further, the counsel for the applicant was given full opportunity to make comments on the results of the audit.1
[11] Consequently, in the circumstances, I am of the view that the member"s conduct was in fact fair and objective, and that "an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically - and having thought the matter through"2 would not consider that there was an apprehension of bias on the part of the panel member.
[12] The applicant further submits that the panel misconstrued the evidence before it.
[13] The panel member essentially rejected the applicant"s claim for refugee status as a result of the implausibilities and inconsistencies identified in his story, as well as the lack of credible evidence adduced in support of his claim.
[14] It is trite law that questions of credibility and weight of evidence are within the purview of the Refugee Division as a trier of fact, and that this Court will not intervene as long as inferences drawn by the Board are not unreasonable.3 They are not in the present case.
[15] For the foregoing reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 11, 2000.
__________________1 Certified Tribunal Record at 60, 70.
2 Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369.
3 Brar v. M.E.I. (1993), 152 N.R. 157 (F.C.A.).; Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.).