Date: 19980506
Docket: IMM-2974-97
BETWEEN:
DAVOUD MOSLEMIN ASL
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
(given in Court on Wednesday April 15, 1998, at 4:15 pm)
MCKEOWN J.
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board"), dated June 25, 1997, that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.
[2] The applicant submits that the issue is that the Board did not consider the totality of the evidence and cites four points in particular.
[3] The applicant submits that the Board did not deal with the issue of the summons being support for the applicant's position that he was persecuted on the basis of a perceived political opinion. In the applicant's view, the Board concentrated on whether the summons was from the Military Court or the City Police. While the Board considered that particular point with respect to the applicant's credibility, it reviewed the issue of the summons in some detail and concluded by giving the summons very little weight, notwithstanding that the Board did not challenge the validity of the summons. This conclusion was open to the Board on the evidence and its analysis of the role of the summons.
[4] The applicant also submits that the Board did not take into account the applicant's explanation of the delay between the incident of September 1995 and the issuance of the summons in January 1997. The Board reviewed the applicant's explanation and found it not plausible. Again, this finding was open on the evidence. I also note that the summons does not set out the reason for which they were looking for the applicant. It does not support or refute the applicant's position that it was in connection with the September 1995 incident.
[5] The applicant also submits that the Board ignored the injuries he received as detailed in his PIF. However, the PIF only deals with injuries received in June 1995 and not with the lashes received as a result of an August 1994 incident. The Board is under no obligation to review each and every piece of evidence unless it is central to the issue in question.
[6] The applicant also submits that the Board did not review the evidence surrounding his very authentic looking but false driver's license. Again, this evidence does not go to the central issue before me.
[7] The Board reviewed the applicant's credibility and made findings which were open to it on the evidence. The Board findings on plausibility were also open to it. While the Board could have reached other conclusions with respect to plausibility, as was stated by Justice Décary in Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 313 (F.C.A.):
| As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review. |
[8] I do not consider the Board's findings on plausibility to be so unreasonable as to warrant my intervention. I am satisfied that the Board considered the totality of the evidence.
[9] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
W.P. McKeown
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 6, 1998