Date: 20000510
Docket: IMM-1871-99
Between:
NOEL BASA MUSONI,
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
DENAULT J.:
[1] This order concerns an application for judicial review of a decision handed down on March 2, 1999 by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Refugee Division"), which found that the applicant, a citizen of Rwanda and a member of the Tutsi ethnic group, was not a Convention refugee.
[2] Having assessed all the evidence produced in support of the claim, the Refugee Division found that it was insufficient to enable the Division to find that the claimant had a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his race or membership in a particular social group, the Tutsis. The Refugee Division thought that there was no reasonable possibility that the claimant would be persecuted if his returned to his country of nationality, because his testimony was very vague and his story was not credible.
[3] In the decision for which judicial review is requested, the Refugee Division emphasized a number of "differences" between the account of events appearing in the applicant's Personal Information Form and his testimony at the hearing. These differences concern several issues, whether, for example, the applicant was accompanied by a male or female cashier during an incident that occurred in January 1997. The applicant apparently contradicted himself on this point. The Refugee Division also had doubts about where the applicant had hidden in Kigali. The Refugee Division also commented unfavourably on the circumstances in which the applicant came to the United States, on the length of his stay there, and on the testimony of a Rwandan lawyer, heard when the inquiry was reopened, concerning the situation of conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda.
[4] Having reread the testimonial evidence and the documents filed at the inquiry, I am prepared to acknowledge that in some respects, the Refugee Division may seem to be nit-picking, in particular about the influence of the Adventist Church in the assistance given to the applicant, or regarding the address of the church he attends in Montreal. The same may be said about the applicant's failure to claim refugee status in the United States of America during the 30 days he stayed there, in the circumstances in which he found himself.
[5] The fact still remains that it was up to the applicant to prove that the Refugee Division had rendered a decision based on an erroneous finding of fact that it had made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act). In this regard, the Federal Court of Appeal, in Aguebor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, (1993) 160 N.R. 315, at page 316, has reminded us of the Refugee Division's jurisdiction and of the restraint that this Court must exercise:
| There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? 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. |
[6] Had I been called upon to judge this case on the merits, I might perhaps have come to a conclusion different from that of the Refugee Division. However, that is not the test to apply to considering an application for judicial review. In the case at bar, the applicant has not proved that the Refugee Division improperly assessed the evidence or drew inferences that could not be reasonably made. For these reasons, this Court has no reason to intervene.
[7] The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
[8] None of the counsel proposed any serious question for certification, within the meaning of subsection 83.1 of the Immigration Act.
(PIERRE DENAULT)
________________________
Ottawa, Ontario
May 10, 2000 Judge
Certified true translation
Martine Bruntet, LL.B.
Date: 20000510
Docket: IMM-1871-99
Ottawa, Ontario, this 10th day of May 2000
Before the Honourable Justice Denault
Between :
NOEL BASA MUSONI,
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
(PIERRE DENAULT)
Judge
Certified true translation
Martine Bruntet, LL.B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND OF SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: IMM-1871-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: NOEL BASA MUSONI v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTREAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 3, 2000
REASONS FOR THE ORDER OF DENAULT J.
DATE: MAY 10, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Ms. ADÈLE MARDOCHE FOR APPLICANT
Mr. MICHEL SYNNOTT FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ms. ADÈLE MARDOCHE FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada