Date: 19990813
Docket: IMM-6804-98
Between :
Mohamed AMIROUCHE
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated December 16, 1998, in which the Board, having found him not to be credible, determined he was not a Convention refugee.
[2] Upon hearing counsel for the parties and upon reviewing the evidence, I find the Board committed a significant error of fact when it stated that the applicant left Algeria after being threatened by terrorists (which took place in May of 1996) but voluntarily returned before leaving Algeria for good (in July of 1997). The Board stated as follows:
| Il semble tout à fait invraisemblable au tribunal que le revendicateur, en mai 1996, après avoir été menacé de toute part tant par les autorités policières que par un groupe armé, décide de retourner volontairement en Algérie où il serait visé ainsi que sa famille par les deux groupes ci-haut nommés. |
| Encore une fois, considérant les menaces de mort qui pèse (sic) contre lui et sa famille, proférées par le groupe armé, le tribunal trouve inconcevable que le revendicateur n'ait pas considéré ces menaces sérieusement et ait décidé de retourner volontairement en Algérie. Nous croyons que devant un tel comportement, l'application de la décision rendue par la Cour fédérale dans l'arrêt Galdamez [Galdamez, Santo Peraza c. M.E.I. (C.F. 1re inst., IMM-1544-94), McKeown, 9 décembre 1994] est fort appropriée. |
[3] The respondent concurs that the evidence demonstrates that while the applicant did return to Algeria after trips to Turkey and Syria in November and December 1995 and Niger and Burkina Faso in April 1996, the applicant did not voluntarily return to Algeria after the May 1996 incident, having stayed in Algeria between April 1996 and his definitive departure from the country in July 1997.
[4] In my view, whether the applicant voluntarily returned to Algeria after being threatened is of imperative importance as it determines whether his fear of persecution is indeed well founded. It further constitutes a major element which determines the applicant's credibility and as such has great bearing on the Board's final decision. The intervention of this Court is therefore warranted.
[5] Consequently, the application for judicial review is granted, the decision of the Board set aside, and the matter remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted panel.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 13, 1999