Date: 20000327
Docket: IMM-1361-99
Between:
Kasmir Singh MULTANI
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated February 15, 1999, by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, which determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act.
[2] The decision in question is purely based upon the applicant's lack of credibility, given the contradictions, implausibilities and omissions in the evidence he gave, and also considering his delay in leaving India.
[3] In such cases, it is well established that it is not for this Court to take the place of the Refugee Division where, as here, the applicant fails to prove that the panel based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act). The Federal Court of Appeal clearly articulated the standard of deference applicable to credibility findings by such a specialized tribunal in Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315, at page 316:
| There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review. In Giron, the Court merely observed that in the area of plausibility, the unreasonableness of a decision may be more palpable, and so more easily identifiable, since the account appears on the face of the record. In our opinion, Giron in no way reduces the burden that rests on an appellant, of showing that the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division could not reasonably have been drawn. In this case, the appellant has not discharged this burden. |
[4] As to the applicant's argument that the Refugee Division gave too much weight to his port-of-entry statement, I find it groundless. It is well settled that the port-of-entry examination form is admissible evidence (see, for example, Al Dalawi v. Minister Citizenship and Immigration (August 5, 1999), IMM-6394-98 (F.C.T.D.)). Furthermore, not only do the omissions in the port-of-entry statement relate to material facts, they should also be considered in the context of other omissions, contradictions and implausibilities relating to the applicant's testimony and personal information form.
[5] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 27, 2000
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-1361-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: KASMIR SINGH MULTANI v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 16, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: March 27, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Eveline Fiset FOR THE APPLICANT
Claude Provencher FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Eveline Fiset FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Present: the Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
Kasmir Singh MULTANI
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision dated February 15, 1999, by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, which determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas