Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content




     Date: 19990429

     Docket: IMM-2155-98

Ottawa, Ontario, April 29, 1999

Before: Pinard J.

Between:

     BONAVENTURE ANAGANA,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     THE MINISTER,

     Defendant.

     ORDER

     The application for judicial review from the decision on April 1, 1998 by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.



     JUDGE

Certified true translation


Bernard Olivier, LL. B.




     Date: 19990429

     Docket: IMM-2155-98

Between:

     BONAVENTURE ANAGANA

     Applicant,

     - and -

     THE MINISTER,

     Defendant.

     REASONS FOR ORDER

PINARD J.


[1]      The application for judicial review is from a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division ("the Refugee Division") on April 1, 1998, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.

[2]      The members of the Refugee Division did not consider the applicant credible and gave reasons for their decision as follows:

     [TRANSLATION]
         The plaintiff alleged that the newspaper L"Indépendant is still published and distributed openly at this date. We feel that it is actually the writer of the article in question that the authorities would have sought, not the graphics designer.
         When we asked him about his present fear, he answered that he could no longer find work and not that he was afraid of being imprisoned, which would be logical since he said he was being sought.

         The fact that he was able to leave Cameroon in broad daylight with his papers in order confirms us in our view that his testimony is not credible.

[3]      Although short and concise, the Refugee Division's decision contains three very specific points and seems to me to be sufficiently clear and complete to enable the applicant to fully understand why he was denied refugee status.

[4]      The question here is essentially one of fact and the facts on which the decision is based are supported by the evidence. In the circumstances, I was not persuaded that the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, could not reasonably have been drawn (see Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)).

[5]      Accordingly, the intervention of this Court is not justified and the application for judicial review is dismissed.


     YVON PINARD

     JUDGE

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

April 29, 1999

Certified true translation


Bernard Olivier, LL. B.


     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD


COURT No.:          IMM-2155-98
STYLE OF CAUSE:      BONAVENTURE ANAGANA v. THE MINISTER

PLACE OF HEARING:      MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

DATE OF HEARING:      FEBRUARY 17, 1999

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:      PINARD J.

DATED:          APRIL 29, 1999


APPEARANCES:

Marlène Dubuisson Balthazar      for the applicant
Daniel Latulippe      for the respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Marlène Dubuisson Balthazar      for the applicant

Montréal, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg      for the respondent

Deputy Attorney General of Canada


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.