Federal Court Decisions

     Date: 19990415

     Docket: IMM-202-98

Between :

     CHARLES CHIGBUO IBERKWE

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE 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 November 17, 1997, in which the Board determined he was not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act (the Act).

[2]      The Board found the applicant not to be credible. It concluded there were serious reasons to believe that the applicant's alleged opposition group, "Abia for Democracy", did not exist and the applicant was not a member. In reaching this conclusion, the Board found it had serious reasons to believe that the seized documents relating to "Abia for Democracy" were fictitious, and not printer's samples.

[3]      The applicant first argues that the Board should not have allowed the Minister's representative standing pursuant to subsection 69.1(5) of the Act. The argument is without merit. Subsection 69.1(5) reads as follows:

(5) At the hearing into a person's claim to be a Convention refugee, the Refugee Division (a) shall give      (i) the person a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, question witnesses and make representations, and      (ii) the Minister a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and, if the Minister notifies the Refugee Division that the Minister is of the opinion that matters involving section E or F of Article 1 of the Convention or subsection 2(2) of this Act are raised by the claim, to question the person making the claim and other witnesses and make representations; and (b) may, if it considers it appropriate to do so, give the Minister a reasonable opportunity to question the person making the claim and any other witnesses and to make representations concerning the claim.

(5) À l'audience, la section du statut : a) est tenue de donner :      (i) à l'intéressé, la possibilité de produire des éléments de preuve, d'interroger des témoins et de présenter des observations,      (ii) au ministre, la possibilité de produire des éléments de preuve, d'interroger l'intéressé ou tout autre témoin et de présenter des observations, ces deux derniers droits n'étant toutefois accordés au ministre que s'il l'informe qu'à son avis, la revendication met en cause la section E ou F de l'article premier de la Convention ou le paragraphe 2(2) de la présente loi; b) peut, dans tous les cas, si elle l'estime indiqué, autoriser le ministre à interroger l'intéressé ou tout autre témoin et à présenter des observations.

Even though there is a footnote in the decision which specifies that documents were presented at the hearing by the representative of the Minister "[P]ursuant to paragraph 69.1(5)(A)(ii) of the Immigration Act", it is clear from the transcript of the hearing (pages 127 and 128 of the Tribunal Record) that the Board considered it appropriate to allow the Minister to question the applicant and to make representations concerning his claim. Even though the Presiding Member refused to be specific as to the applicability of paragraph 69.1(5)(b) of the Act, he gave clear reasons which in fact justified the application of that provision.

[4]      The applicant also argues that the letters and documents seized by the Minister constitute evidence which was obtained in a matter that infringed or denied his rights or freedoms guaranteed by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that, because of the admission of these letters and documents, he was denied a fair hearing. The respondent relies on paragraphs 110(2)(b) and (c) of the Act wherein an immigration officer, for the purposes of the Act and its regulations, may seize documents if the officer believes that they have been fraudulently or improperly obtained or that action is necessary to prevent their improper or fraudulent use.

[5]      Paragraphs 110(2)(b) and (c) of the Act, the validity of which is not at issue in these proceedings, read as follows:

(2) An immigration officer may (b) seize and hold at a port of entry or in Canada any travel or other documents that may be used for the purpose of determining whether a person may be granted admission or may come into Canada where the immigration officer believes on reasonable grounds that that action is required to facilitate the carrying out of any provision of this Act or the regulations; and (c) seize and hold any travel or other documents if the immigration officer believes on reasonable grounds that they have been fraudulently or improperly obtained or used or that action is necessary to prevent their fraudulent or improper use.

(2) L'agent d'immigration a le pouvoir : b) de saisir et retenir, à un point d'entrée ou sur le territoire canadien, tous documents de voyage ou autres pouvant servir à déterminer si une personne peut obtenir l'admission ou entrer au Canada, lorsqu'il a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'une telle mesure s'impose pour faciliter l'application de la présente loi ou de ses règlements; c) de saisir et retenir tous documents de voyage ou autres s'il croit, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'ils ont été obtenus ou utilisés irrégulièrement ou frauduleusement, ou qu'une telle mesure s'impose pour en empêcher l'utilisation irrégulière ou frauduleuse.

[6]      Upon reviewing the evidence, I am satisfied of the existence of "reasonable grounds" as required by paragraphs 110(2)(b) and (c) of the Act. In any event, because this issue was not raised before the Board and because, having regard to all the circumstances, I consider that it is not established that the admission of the letters and documents in the proceedings brings the administration of justice into disrepute, the applicant's argument must be set aside.

[7]      Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

                            

                                     JUDGE

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

April 15, 1999