Date: 19991102
Docket: IMM-6291-98
MONTREAL, QUEBEC, THIS 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 1999
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER
BETWEEN:
MOHAMED TABET-ZATLA
Applicant
AND
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Application for judicial review of the decision rendered November 20, 1998 by Ghislain Lavoie and Danielle Debbas, board members of the Immigration and Refugee Board in file M98-01920.
(Section 82.1 of the Immigration Act)
O R D E R
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
| Danièle Tremblay-Lamer Judge |
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
Date: 19991102
Docket: IMM-6291-98
Between:
MOHAMED TABET-ZATLA,
Applicant,
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review from a decision of the Refugee Division that the applicant, a citizen of Algeria, is not a refugee.
[2] The applicant feared the G.I.A., which he said wanted to force him to extort money from the coffers of the company where he held the position of senior accountant.
[3] Despite the able argument by counsel for the applicant, there is nothing to justify this Court's intervention in the case at bar.
[4] The Refugee Division was right to reject the applicant's explanations and he cannot win his case simply by repeating the same explanations in this Court.
[5] It was reasonable for the Refugee Division to conclude that his behaviour was inconsistent with the existence of a subjective fear of persecution. That conclusion rested on the following points: the applicant went to Tunisia in December 1997 and deliberately returned to his country. The panel further noted that he had no problems with the G.I.A. after his return. Finally, the panel considered the delay in leaving the country when he had had a U.S. visa since December 12, 1997.
[6] As I recently pointed out in Kamana v. Minister,1
| The lack of evidence going to the subjective element of the claim is a fatal flaw which in and of itself warrants dismissal of the claim, since both elements of the refugee definition -- subjective and objective -- must be met. |
[7] As to any infringement of the audi alteram partem rule, this is not a case in which the applicant contradicted himself, which depending on certain factors might have imposed an obligation on the panel to require an explanation. In the case at bar the panel fully understood his testimony, but did not believe it. The question is essentially one of credibility, and the panel's assessment was neither wrongful nor arbitrary.
[8] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[9] None of the counsel recommended that a question be certified.
| Danièle Tremblay-Lamer Judge |
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
November 2, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT No.: IMM-6291-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMED TABET-ZATLA, |
Applicant,
AND
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, |
Respondent.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
| DATE OF HEARING: November 1, 1999 |
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
DATED: November 2, 1999
APPEARANCES:
| Brigitte Poirier for the plaintiff |
| Marie-Nicole Moreau for the defendant |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Brigitte Poirier for the plaintiff |
Montréal, Quebec
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the defendant |
Ottawa, Ontario
| Federal Court of Canada Trial Division Date: 19991102 Docket: IMM-6291-98 Between: MOHAMED TABET-ZATLA, Applicant, and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, Respondent. REASONS FOR ORDER |