IMM-1809-97
BETWEEN:
MOUSSA BOUROUISA,
Applicant,
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.:
This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "tribunal") dated May 2, 1996, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.
The applicant, who was born on February 23, 1958, is a citizen of Algeria. He has challenged the decision of the tribunal primarily on the ground that it violated the principles of natural justice when it refused to grant his request to be allowed to testify with the assistance of an interpreter.
The relevant facts concerning the applicant's argument are as follows:
1. No interpreter signed the "interpreter declaration" on the personal information form ("P.I.F.") signed by the applicant. In other words, the applicant was able to read and understand the questions that appear on the P.I.F. without the assistance of an interpreter. The applicant completed the French version of the form. In addition, the applicant answered the question set out in box 37 of the P.I.F. in French; that question reads as follows:
| You are claiming to be a Convention refugee by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution in the country of your nationality, or if you do not have a country of nationality, in the country of your former habitual residence. Your claim to a well-founded fear of persecution must be related to one or more of the five grounds cited in the definition of a Convention refugee as contained in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, namely: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. In order to support your claim, please provide the following information: |
|
| A. Set out in chronological order, all the significant incidents which caused you to seek protection outside of your country of nationality or former habitual residence. Please also make reference to any measures taken against you, your family members, or any other individuals in a similar situation. |
|
| B. What protection, if any, did you seek from the authorities of your country? If you did not seek protection from the authorities of your country, why not? |
|
The applicant's response is typed and covers two pages.
2. In box 40 of the P.I.F., the applicant indicated that he did not need an interpreter in relation to his communications with the Refugee Division. In box 41 of the same form, the applicant asked that his hearing be held in French.
3. At the beginning of the hearing, the presiding member asked the applicant whether he clearly understood what was being said. The applicant replied that he understood. The following questions and answers appear at pages 373 and 374 of the tribunal's record:
[translation]
| BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER (to the appellant) |
|
| Q. Do you clearly understand everything that is being said? |
|
| Q. Okay. If you have no, if you have ... |
|
| A. ... If there is something ... |
|
| - If at any time you have any, any questions or problems, then you must tell us. We will then get an interpreter. |
|
4. During examination in chief of the applicant, at page 21 of the transcript of July 28, 1995 (tribunal's record, page 393), his counsel asked him what [translation] "the factor that made you decide ..." to leave Algeria was. The applicant replied that he had received threats in writing, which were made in three letters. His counsel then asked him to recount the content of those letters. At page 28 of the transcript (tribunal's record, page 400), the refugee hearing officer, who observed the difficulty the applicant was having in explaining the threats contained in the three letters, asked him to explain, in simple terms, [translation] "What was the objective of the letter?" On the following page, when his client was unable to recount the content of the letters in a clear manner, counsel for the applicant said to the tribunal that it would perhaps be preferable to have an interpreter. The applicant then said to his counsel (see page 29 of the transcript - tribunal's record, page 401):
[translation]
| - No, no, the thing is that sometimes I can't find the right word, because I don't know, I have never been, that is, at a hearing like this because, sometimes the word, a simple word I don't know, because if I was threatened and all that, but then, it, then I don't feel good, it's really because ... |
|
| - That is, when I remember those threats, that is, I don't know what to say, to cut people's throats like that, and all that, it's, it made me, I no longer have the, I don't even remember the dates. And also, the first time when you say four, I told you 1984. 1984, it was in 1984. I am, I no longer have, have, I am not comfortable even then. |
|
After the applicant made those comments, his counsel asked the tribunal for a five-minute recess, which was granted. When they came back, counsel for the applicant formally requested that an interpreter be provided. After a discussion between counsel for the applicant and the presiding member, the tribunal denied the formal request made by counsel. The following questions and answers appear at pages 40, 41 and 42 of the transcript (tribunal's record, pages 412, 413 and 414):
[translation]
| BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER (to counsel) |
|
| - Because in, in this, I, I don't know, that request seems to me to be exploiting the situation, it is a way of stalling for time. |
|
| - No, it is not exploiting the situation, because we want to save time. |
|
| - You know how he, he absolutely wanted to proceed this morning so that it wouldn't be postponed for an eternity, it really isn't to stall for time. |
|
| - Because you prepared your client. Before coming here, that's what you said at the preparatory conference that we had this morning. |
|
| - And I imagine that since that is the point, uh, the essential point of his fear, the letters, I imagine that those points were touched on, uh, during that preparation. |
|
| - And there was no request for an interpreter then, that is where I am having difficulty. |
|
| BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER 2 (to the refugee hearing officer) |
|
| BY THE REFUGEE HEARING OFFICER (to counsel) |
|
| - The Act, the Act requires that we proceed expeditiously. |
|
| - We shall see. Make your decision and then I'll see afterward what I'll do with that decision. |
|
| BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER 2 (to counsel) |
|
| BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER (to counsel) |
|
| - We must proceed, we must proceed. |
|
| - I am extremely sorry, it's not, we must proceed because there was every, every opportunity was offered and we can even offer to have him write in Arabic what the letter said, well. |
|
| - Fine, but if, okay, if he writes it, who is going to translate it for us? |
|
| - Well, certainly we shall ask a translator to translate for us what is written in that letter, what was written in that letter. He will tell us what there was, what there was as, we will continue to ask questions, and then, if he wants to write down what was in the letter, he will write it in Arabic, and then we will request a translation. That is what we are offering you. |
|
| BY COUNSEL (to the presiding member) |
|
| BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER 2 (to counsel) |
|
| BY COUNSEL (to the presiding member) |
|
| Q. ... could you write it on a ...? |
|
BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER (to the appellant)
| - So, you are going to tell us. Now, we are going to ask you questions about that. |
|
5. As the transcript shows, the tribunal asked the applicant to write down, in Arabic, the content of the three threatening letters he had received. After the applicant wrote down the three letters in Arabic, the tribunal asked him to recount the content of the three letters in French. The tribunal subsequently asked an interpreter to translate the letters that the applicant had written down in Arabic from Arabic to French. The tribunal then determined that the explanation given by the applicant in French of the letters he had written down in Arabic was almost identical to the explanation provided by the interpreter assigned by the tribunal.
6. After the applicant's testimony concerning the content of the three letters, he continued to testify in French in response to the other questions put to him by the members of the tribunal.
In my opinion, it cannot be denied that the applicant understood French sufficiently to be able to answer, in French, the questions put to him by his counsel and by the members of the tribunal. Granted, when the members of the tribunal asked the applicant questions about the three threatening letters, he had a great deal of difficulty recounting the content of the letters. When we read the transcript, there can be no doubt that the applicant's difficulties in recounting the content of the three threatening letters cannot be attributed to the fact that he was testifying in French. Accordingly, the applicant's argument on this point must be rejected.
The applicant's other arguments are set out in paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 of his memorandum. Those paragraphs read as follows:
| 35. Even if the Court were of the opinion that no breach of justice occurred and that the hearing was conducted in accordance with all principles of natural justice, it is submitted that the Board, in making its decision, did not have regard to the totality of the evidence properly before it, and many of the inferences drawn by the Board were unsupported by the record; |
|
| 36. The Board erred in concluding, from the fact that the applicant returned to his parents' home, prior to his departure, despite having received threatening letters there, that such action contradicted his alleged fear of persecution; |
|
| 37. The departure from one's homeland, by force, is not always an easy decision to make, and naturally, one's emotions often take a much more important role in the decision-making process than does one's logic; |
|
In my opinion, these arguments must also be rejected.
The tribunal concluded that the story recounted by the applicant to justify his fear of persecution was not credible. I am of the opinion that, having regard to the evidence, the tribunal's conclusion is not unreasonable. I cannot imagine how the tribunal could have concluded otherwise, having regard to that evidence.
For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
"MARC NADON"
Judge
Certified true translation
C. Delon, LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO: IMM-1809-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: Moussa Bourouisa v.
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 21, 1997
REASONS FOR ORDER OF NADON J.
DATED MAY 23, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Lisa Azzuolo FOR THE APPLICANT
Annie Van Der Meerschen FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Lisa Azzuolo
Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT