Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20020226

Docket: IMM-3655-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 218

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 26^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2002

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DANIÈLE TREMBLAY-LAMER

BETWEEN:

                                                         ADOLEY LYDIA ADOQUAYE

                                                                                                                                                    Applicant

                                                                            - and -

                                   THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                               Respondent

                                                  REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                 This is an application for judicial review under subsection 82.1(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, (the "Act"), of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") wherein the Board determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee. The negative decision is based on the applicant's lack of credibility.

[2]                 The applicant was born on January 2, 1968 in Tarkwa, Ghana.

[3]                 She alleges the following events in her Personal Information Form (PIF). She worked as a caterer for African Mining Services (AMS), a company that catered for expatriates, and had a large club house in which the President, Jerry John Rawlings, and some of his ministers sometimes spent weekends.

[4]                 On June 4, 1999 several ministers attended a social event at the club house. A waitress brought a folder to the applicant which had been left on a table after the event. The applicant decided to look through the folder and found a secret report which alluded to a strategy to buy votes and to register non-Ghanaians as voters for the upcoming elections. Other illegal means to rig the election were also mentioned.

[5]                 The applicant, who was a member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), which is the major opposition party in Ghana, kept the folder and sent it by courier, under a fictitious name, to her political party.

[6]                 On June 8, 1999 the applicant was visited by the waitress, who was in fact a soldier, and her manager. The waitress confirmed that she gave the folder to the applicant, but the applicant denied it.

[7]                 The following day, the applicant was visited again, but this time she was taken to the police station. The applicant alleges that she was detained for one week without charges, and that she was not questioned but was raped, beaten and ill-treated.

[8]                 The applicant was also apparently threatened by a police officer, Mr. Kwame Bruce, and was told that if she did not tell where the folder was being kept, he would shoot her. The applicant was subsequently released but was required to report to the police station three times per day. She did this until she left the country. The applicant, however, still denied having the folder. The folder was later published in private newspapers.

[9]                 On September 18, 1999 the applicant fled Ghana and arrived in Canada on September 19, 1999. She claimed refugee status the following day based upon her fear of persecution on the ground of political opinion, namely her membership in the NPP.

[10]            The applicant first submits that some comments made by the Board were antagonistic or "nasty" which displayed a biased attitude toward her. For instance, the Board asked the applicant whether she had learnt her story by heart because she recited her PIF word for word.

[11]            Extract from PIF:

They will also brutally harm civilians if they prevented them from "doing their work".

Tribunal Record at 21.

[12]            At pages 29-30 of the transcript:

A.            They will brutally harm civilians if they prevent them in doing their work, and ...

Q.            Excuse madame, did you learn your story by heart?

A.            No, I know that for it happened before me because...

-              Because you seem to recite it, you know.

[13]            Given the similarity between the PIF and the testimony, and given the applicant's failure to object at the hearing, I am unable to conclude from this comment that the Board member has demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

[14]            The applicant further submits that the Board erred in its appreciation of her credibility. I disagree.

[15]            The Board gave detailed reasons for its finding that the applicant was not a credible witness. More specifically, the Board did not believe that the applicant was a member of the NPP and, therefore, did not believe her story.

[16]            In addition, the Board doubted the applicant's credibility because she made an error concerning the amount of the membership fees of the NPP and was unable to state the motto of the NPP.

[17]            Further, the Board could not comprehend why the applicant did not file any of the articles allegedly published in several newspapers regarding the National Democratic Congress (NDC) strategy to be used during the elections.

[18]            The Board also found that the applicant gave contradictory statements with respect to whether the NPP knew her story and how.

[19]            Finally, the Board did not find credible that the applicant, an educated woman, did not go to see the doctor after her alleged rape, particularly given her social position.

[20]            The jurisprudence has clearly established that the Court cannot substitute its view of the facts for that of the Board. As stated by Evans J. in Cepeda-Gutierrez et al v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 157 F.T.R. 35 at 40:

[...] Thus, in order to attract judicial intervention under s. 18.1(4)(d), the applicant must satisfy the court, not only that the Board made a palpably erroneous finding of material fact, but also that the finding was made "without regard to the evidence."

[21]            In the present case, I am satisfied that the finding of lack of credibility was made with regard to the evidence and that the Board gave reasons in clear and unmistakable terms. Thus, there is no basis for the intervention of the Court.

[22]            With regard to the interruptions by the Board members, after reading the transcript of the proceedings, I am satisfied that the Board gave the applicant ample opportunity to present her case and answer their questions. It was within the purview of the Board members to question the applicant in order to clarify discrepancies and contradictions in her testimony. The few interruptions I have noted did not stop the applicant from fully explaining her story and are not sufficient to conclude that she was not given an opportunity to be heard.

[23]            Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

                                                                      "Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"

JUDGE