Date: 19980113
Docket: IMM-270-97
BETWEEN:
ROSA SANCHEZ
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HEALD, D.J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated December 23, 1996, By that decision the Board determined that the applicant herein is not a Convention refugee.
[2] FACTS
The applicant's evidence may be summarized as follows. The applicant is a citizen of El Salvador. She was employed there as a grader in a coffee company. Her claim to Convention refugee status is on the basis of her political opinion. She and some of her fellow workers organized a union at work to improve their working conditions. The applicant was a founding member as well as Treasurer of the union. Their union staged a three day strike in February of 1989. On the last day of that strike, the union received an anonymous letter which warned that the union leaders would disappear. Thereafter the applicant was followed to and from work on a daily basis. In January of 1994, the manager of the company threatened the union leaders. In February of 1994 the President of the union local was killed. The body showed signs of rape and torture. The union staged rotating strikes until the factory was permanently shut down on March 28, 1994. Three days later, four persons in uniform ransacked the applicant's home.
[3] In early April of 1994, the applicant's daughter was brutally murdered. It was reported that two members of the military left her house shortly after the murder. A note was left on the floor which stated that the death squad was responsible for the killing. The police came shortly and confiscated the note.
[4] THE BOARD'S DECISION
The Board declined the application on a two-fold-basis: (a) a lack of "credibility and plausibility in the applicant's evidence including the claimant's demeanour";1 (b) a lack of well-foundedness in the applicant' fear of persecution.
[5] ISSUES
| 1. Did the Board err in making negative findings with respect to the credibility or trustworthiness of the applicant's evidence? |
| 2. Did the Board err in ignoring a portion of the evidence or in making erroneous findings with respect to any portion of the evidence? |
[6] 1. CREDIBILITY
In its reasons the Board explained in detail why it did not find the applicant's testimony to be credible. It also explained why it rejected the death certificate relating to the applicant's daughter as being fraudulent. The Board, as the trier of fact, is required to determine the credibility of evidence adduced before it.2 Accordingly, a reviewing Court is not entitled to interfere with such a decision. The Board found
discrepancies in the death certificate which it asked the applicant to explain. The applicant was unable to explain these discrepancies to the Board's satisfaction. Such a finding is reasonably open to the Board and should not be set aside in judicial review proceedings.
[7] 2. IGNORING EVIDENCE
The applicant submitted that key evidence was ignored. There was a specific reference to the psychiatric assessment of the applicant. I do not agree that the Board ignored this evidence. It was specifically referred to in the Board's reasons. However, the Board did not agree that the applicant's grief adversely affected her credibility nor did it substantiate the alleged reasons given for the death of the daughter. In my view, such a finding was reasonably open to the Board on this record.
[8] With respect to the documentary evidence, the Board, after reviewing that evidence, concluded that the applicant's fear of persecution was not objectively well-founded. The Board deduced that while there was violence in El Salvador, the government had taken steps to counter the activity of criminal groups and to protect its law-abiding citizens. It also noted that the constitution of El Salvador prohibited
discrimination against unions. There was further evidence that many employees had been compensated for such discrimination. In my view, the totality of this record supports the Board's conclusion.
[9] CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the within application for Judicial Review is dismissed.
[10] CERTIFICATION
Neither counsel suggested certification of a serious issue of general importance pursuant to section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree that this is not a case for certification.
"Darrel V. Heald"
D.J.
Toronto, Ontario
January 13, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980113
Docket: IMM-270-97
BETWEEN:
ROSA SANCHEZ
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-270-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: ROSA SANCHEZ
- and -
| MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 12, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: HEALD, D.J.
DATED: JANUARY 13, 1998
APPEARANCES: Mr. Yehuda Levinson
For the Applicant
Mr. Michael C. Morris
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Yehuda Levinson
Levinson and Associates
Barristers and Solicitors
212 King Street West
Suite 410
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 1K5
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
__________________
1 Applicant's Record, page 11.
2 Compare Brar v. M.E.I., A-987-84, May 29, 1986, F.C.A. per Thurlow, C.J.