Federal Court Decisions

     IMM-1493-93

B E T W E E N:

George MANU

Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

NADON J.:

     The applicant seeks to set aside a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") rendered on March 17, 1993. The Board dismissed the applicant"s claim to convention refugee status on the grounds that his evidence was not credible and that, in any event, by virtue of changed political conditions in Ghana, the applicant did not have an objective basis to his claim.

     The hearing of the applicant"s judicial review application took place in Ottawa on September 1, 1994. At the end of the hearing, I ordered that the matter be adjourned until the Federal Court of Appeal had rendered a decision giving guidance in respect of changed country conditions. I rendered the following order:

The hearing is adjourned until such time as the Court of Appeal renders a decision in Escobar Alvarado v. M.E.I. (IMM-2057-93) or in another case dealing with changed country conditions. Following such a decision the hearing will be reconvened to hear additional arguments from counsel if they so wish.

     On April 28, 1997, the Federal Court of Appeal rendered its decision in Alvarado v. M.E.I. (A-267-94). The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Desjardins J.A. and reads as follows:

We are all of the view that, as the answer to the certified question would not affect the outcome of this appeal, the certified question should not be answered.

In any event, in view of the decision of this Court in Yusuf v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1995), 179 N.R. 11 (F.C.A.), rendered after the certification of the question, we find that the certified question is already answered.

This appeal will therefore be dismissed.

     On May 7, 1997, Joyal J. gave directions to the effect that the parties should forward submissions in regard to the decision rendered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Alvarado, supra. Following Joyal J."s directions, the file was brought to me for consideration. Upon review thereof, I asked the Registry to organize a teleconference with counsel for the applicant and the respondent. During the teleconference held on June 25, 1997, counsel advised me that they did not intend to make any further representations. I then advised counsel that I would reexamine the file and render judgment in due course.

     In Alvarado, supra, Madame Justice Desjardins did not discuss the issue of changed country conditions since that issue had already been dealt with by the Court of Appeal in Yusuf v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1995), 179 N.R. 11. The reasons for judgment in Yusuf were delivered by Mr. Justice Hugessen who, at page 12, dealt with the issue of changed country conditions as follows:

We have not been persuaded that the Board committed any reviewable error in finding that "changed circumstances" in northern Somalia were such that the appellant had no well-founded fear of persecution in the event of her return here.

We would add that the issue of so-called "changed circumstances" seems to be in danger of being elevated, wrongly in our view, into a questions of law when it is, at bottom, simply one of fact. A change in the political situation in a claimant"s country of origin is only relevant if it may help in determining whether or not there is, at the date of the hearing, a reasonable and objectively foreseeable possibility that the claimant will be persecuted in the event of return there. That is an issue for factual determination and there is no separate legal "test" by which any alleged change in circumstances must be measured. The use of words such as "meaningful", "effective" or "durable" is only helpful if one keeps clearly in mind that the only question, and therefore the only test, is that derived from the definition of Convention Refugee in s. 2 of the Act : does the claimant now have a well-founded fear of persecution? Since there was in this case evidence to support the Board"s negative finding on this issue, we would not intervene.

     I now turn to the Board"s decision which is the subject of the applicant"s attack. Firstly, with respect to the credibility issue, I see no reason to interfere with the Board"s finding. As Mr. Justice Décary stated in Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1994), 160 N.R. 315, at 316 and 317, the Court will not and should not interfere with respect to findings of credibility unless such findings are "so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, ...". On the evidence, I cannot conclude that the Board"s finding that the applicant"s evidence was not credible is unreasonable.

     With respect to changed country conditions, Mr. Justice Hugessen, in Yusuf, clearly stated that that issue was an issue for factual determination and that no separate test existed to determine whether country conditions had changed. In light of the Court of Appeal"s decision in Yusuf , I am of the view that the Board"s conclusion that there was no objective basis to the claimant"s "subjective fear" is not one that I ought to interfere with. On the evidence before it, the conclusion reached by the Board was reasonably open to it.

     For these reasons, this application for judicial review shall be denied.

        

     Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

September 19, 1997.

     IMM-1493-93

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, this 19th day of September, 1997.

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARC NADON

B E T W E E N:

George MANU

Applicant

- and -

     THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     ORDER

     This application for judicial review is denied.

    

     Judge