Date: 20010329
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 261
BETWEEN:
ALBERTO FLAMINIO MIRAMONTI,
ALEJANDRA PAMELA CASAS YAMADA,
ALEJANDRA ELISABETH MIRAMONTI and
EZITA ELIANA MIRAMONTI
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Wednesday, March 21, 2001)
McKEOWN J.
[1] The applicants seek judicial review of a decision dated March 23, 2000 of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Board") wherein the Board denied the applicants refugee status.
Issues
1. Are the Board's adverse credibility findings perverse?
2. Did the Board err in concluding that the male applicant's fear of persecution is not well-founded.
Analysis
[2] The applicants submit that the credibility findings against the male applicant cannot be upheld. In my view, on the evidence before the Board, it was open to have found that the documentary evidence relating to research conducted by the Board's Research Directorate could be given more weight than the applicant's testimony. The Board went on to state[1]:
In reaching this conclusion, the panel finds that it is simply implausible that the UCR would have ignored the report of the claimant about the attack on him and other party supporters by the opposing JP, as well as the mistreatment that he was supposed to have suffered at the hands of the police.
[3] The second finding, i.e., that a letter from the male applicant's lawyer did not corroborate his testimony, was also open to the Board, although I would have found otherwise. The letter was the applicants' evidence and it was secondary evidence that was contradicted by the response to an information request made by the panel to the effect that the UCR Committee had no knowledge of the incident of August 8, 1998. It would be inappropriate for me to intervene on this basis, as the Board's decision on this point is not patently unreasonable.
[4] The Board did not err by determining that the applicants did not have a well-founded fear of persecution given how recent the political changes were in Argentina. The applicant's party's candidate was elected President of Argentina in the elections of October 1999 and the applicant's party's candidate won the governorship in his own province of Mendoza, however, as well, the Board found[2]:
The panel recognizes that the human rights record of Argentina is not perfect; however, it is persuaded that the police are not above the law. Documentary evidence shows that a number of security officers have been arrested, detained, tried, and convicted of crimes. Furthermore, the "Constitution provides with the right to change their government peacefully, and citizens exercise this right in practice."
[5] Furthermore, the UCR's own officials stated that they were unaware of any incidents of police abuse or harassment of supporters or members of the UCR Party in Argentina in 1998 or 1999. Thus, it was open to the Board to find that the applicants' "fear of persecution in Argentina has been reduced to less than a mere possibility"[3].
[6] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"W.P. McKeown"
Ottawa, Ontario
[1] CRDD Reasons for Decision, pp. 3-4.
[2] CRDD Reasons for Decision, page 5.
[3] CRDD Reasons for Decision, ibid.