Date: 20010817
Docket: IMM-4322-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 907
Ottawa, Ontario, Friday the 17th day of August 2001
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Lydia Magoola is a 26 year old citizen of Uganda. She brings this application for judicial review of the August 17, 2000 decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("CRDD") which found her not to be a Convention refugee.
THE FACTS
[2] Ms. Magoola made her claim to refugee status on the basis of imputed political opinion.
[3] Ms. Magoola stated that in 1998 she became an art teacher at a high school in Kampala, Uganda run by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Mission ("AMM"). Ms. Magoola stated that she and her husband were arrested on May 31, 1999 by men in army uniforms. Her captors were said to have told her that they had learned that teachers at the school funnelled students to the AMM leaders, which in turn funnelled students to the Allied Democratic Front ("ADF"), a terrorist organization in Uganda. Ms. Magoola stated that after her arrest she was detained, beaten and sexually assaulted. She was released after one week, and at the end of June she went back to work at the school. Ms. Magoola testified that her husband, who was a finance officer at the school, was detained for two weeks and was also mistreated in detention.
[4] Ms. Magoola was issued a Ugandan passport on June 15, 1999. In August of 1999, she travelled to the United States on a cultural mission organized by her tribe. While in the United States Ms. Magoola received further communications from a friend and from a family member in Uganda to the effect that she was being sought by the authorities there, that her husband had again been arrested and his whereabouts were unknown, and that it was unsafe for her to return to Uganda.
[5] Ms. Magoola then came to Canada to seek asylum, arriving in Canada on October 1, 1999 and claiming refugee status that day.
[6] Ms. Magoola's claim was found by the CRDD to be implausible in five respects. The cumulative effect of those plausibility concerns was that the CRDD found that Ms. Magoola's claim was not credible.
[7] On this application for judicial review, Ms. Magoola took issue with each of the panel's plausibility concerns.
[8] Those concerns were stated by the CRDD to be as follows:
1. It was implausible that Ms. Magoola, a new teacher with no connection to the ADF, would be arrested and questioned by security forces about the ties between the AMM and the ADF while none of the other 130 school employees, including the headmaster, were arrested;
2. It was implausible that Ms. Magoola would not know that the Director of the AMM was arrested on May 28, 2000, three days before her arrest, since that incident was widely reported in newspapers in Kampala;
3. It was implausible that state officials would have issued a passport to Ms. Magoola for her to travel to the United States and allowed her to leave if they truly suspected her of being involved with a terrorist organization;
4. The letter from her employer, which was filed as proof of her employment, stated that Ms. Magoola was still an employee despite the fact that it was written five months after her employment ended. It was also said to be implausible that the letter would be laudatory given that Ms. Magoola had failed to return to work after her two-month leave of absence; and
5. It was implausible that Ms. Magoola would have simply returned to work without taking any precautions to ensure her own safety after being arbitrarily arrested and harshly treated.
ANALYSIS
[9] It is settled law that the CRDD has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony and that this Court will not interfere with plausibility findings made by the CRDD unless it is satisfied that the panel's conclusion is based on irrelevant considerations or ignores significant evidence.
[10] Notwithstanding the deference owed to the CRDD, I have been persuaded that the first finding of implausibility set out above was made without proper regard to the evidence before the CRDD.
[11] In explaining why she was arrested, Ms. Magoola testified that she was told by her captors that "... some of the students you taught said you referred them" to the AMM. As well, the country conditions documentation noted that at the relevant time security forces harassed Muslims, that arbitrary arrests were a problem and that there were complaints regarding arrests targeted at young Muslims on suspicion that they supported rebel groups.
[12] This evidence could potentially have refuted the CRDD's conclusion of implausibility, and the CRDD erred in failing to at least refer to this evidence. (see: Leung v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 81 F.T.R. 303 (T.D.) at page 307).
[13] However, after a careful review of the transcript of the proceedings before the CRDD and the country conditions documents, I am satisfied that the CRDD did have an evidentiary basis upon which it was entitled to base its remaining conclusions of implausibility. While I might have made different findings, the CRDD having heard Ms. Magoola's testimony was in the best position to have made those findings.
[14] In all of the circumstances, notwithstanding the one error referred to above, the conclusion of the CRDD is not so unreasonable as to warrant judicial intervention. Therefore, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[15] Neither counsel posed a serious question for certification and no question is certified.
ORDER
[16] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
For the reasons set out above, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"