Date: 20000204
Docket: IMM-1600-99
Between:
MD IQBAL HOSSAIN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Panel) that the applicant is not a refugee within the meaning of the Immigration Act1 (the Act).
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, alleges he has a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his political opinions.
[3] The panel found that the applicant's testimony was without credibility. It based its conclusion on a number of improbabilities in the applicant's testimony, including the improbability of the Brigadier's letter2 he had submitted in evidence. The panel held that it had no probative value since it was written in English while the official language of Bangladesh is Bangladeshi, it is not on letterhead paper and has no seal, and it is confidential.
[4] The applicant argues that the panel erred in not assigning probative value to this document, and that it should have had it assessed if it doubted its veracity. I do not agree. This Court has stated before that the panel is not obliged to conduct an assessment as long as there is enough evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of a document,3 which applies in the case at bar.
[5] In this regard I adopt the comments of Nadon J. in the Hamid4 case:
| Once a Board, as the present Board did, comes to the conclusion that an applicant is not credible, in most cases, it will necessarily follow that the Board will not give that applicant's documents much probative value, unless the applicant has been able to prove satisfactorily that the documents in question are truly genuine. In the present case, the Board was not satisfied with the applicant's proof and refused to give the documents at issue any probative value. Put another way, where the Board is of the view, like here, that the applicant is not credible, it will not be sufficient for the applicant to file a document and affirm that it is genuine and that the information contained therein is true. Some form of corroboration or independent proof will be required to "offset" the Board's negative conclusion on credibility. |
[6] Moreover, as the respondent's counsel notes, the panel went to the trouble of assessing the explanations given by the applicant when confronted with the improbability of the document in question. It thought these explanations were unsatisfactory. As I stated in the Tcheremnykh5 case, it is the task of the Refugee Division to assess the explanations provided and to draw its own conclusions concerning the merit of the document.
[7] In relation to the question of whether the applicant's conduct was inconsistent with a subjective fear of persecution, it is trite law that the applicant's failure to claim refugee status in the countries in which he stayed before coming to Canada is a factor that could be considered by the panel in making its assessment.6
[8] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
| "Danièle Tremblay-Lamer" |
| J. |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 4, 2000
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL.B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| DOCKET NO: IMM-1600-99 |
| STYLE: MD IQBAL HOSSAIN v. MCI |
| PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC |
| DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 3, 2000 |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 4, 2000
APPEARANCES:
MARIE-CLAUDE PAQUETTE FOR THE APPLICANT
SIMON RUEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MARIE-CLAUDE PAQUETTE FOR THE APPLICANT
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Date: 20000204
Docket: IMM-1600-99
Between:
MD IQBAL HOSSAIN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
| J. |
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL.B.
__________________1 R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
2 Exhibit 3a.
3 Culimescu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 136 F.T.R. 241.
4 Hamid v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (September 20, 1995), IMM-2829-94 (F.C.T.D.).
5 Tcheremnykh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (September 15, 1998), IMM-5437-97 (F.C.T.D.).
6 Assadi v. M.C.I. (March 25, 1997), IMM-2683-96 (F.C.T.D.); Safakhoo v. M.C.I. (April 11, 1997) IMM-455-96 (F.C.T.D.).