Date: 19971120
Docket: IMM-2508-96
BETWEEN:
YOUCEF ABDELKADER AYADI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
JEROME, A.C.J.:
[1] This is an application for an order setting aside the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board which held that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
[2] At the hearing of this matter, I dismissed the application for the following reasons.
[3] The jurisprudence has established that questions of credibility and weight of evidence are within the jurisdiction of the Refugee Division as the trier of fact in respect of Convention refugee claims. When the Board's finding relates to the credibility of a witness, the Court will be reluctant to interfere with that finding, given the tribunal's opportunity and ability to assess the witness and his demeanour in oral testimony before it.
[4] Furthermore, the Refugee Division is entitled to make an adverse finding of credibility based on the implausibility of an applicant's story, provided the inferences drawn can be reasonably said to exist. Negative findings with respect to an individual's credibility are properly made, provided the tribunal gives reasons for its decision in clear and unequivocal terms. Here, the Board's reasons indicate the panel clearly and unequivocally determined the applicant not to be a credible witness, and detailed reasons for that conclusion are contained in the decision. Indeed, the reasons cite a number of implausibilities in the applicant's evidence concerning integral aspects of his refugee claim.
[5] Furthermore, it was entirely within the Board's jurisdiction to consider the claimant's delay in making his claim for refugee status as well as his failure to satisfy the onus of proving that his country of origin did not possess the capability of affording him protection.
[6] Therefore, after having carefully examined the reasons of the Refugee Division in the present case, I am satisfied that it considered and weighed all of the evidence adduced by the applicant. I am unable to conclude the panel ignored the evidence before it or that its findings were perverse or capricious. In the absence of such an overriding error, there is simply no basis for judicial interference with the decision.
[7] For these reasons, the application is dismissed. At the hearing of this matter, the applicant raised the possibility of a question for certification to the Court of Appeal and he shall have 10 days upon receipt of these written reasons to provide a written request. Counsel for the respondent shall have a further 10 days for a written response.
A.C.J.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 20, 1997