Date: 19980917
Docket: IMM-3142-97
BETWEEN:
ILUNGA KANYANGU KASWEKA
KANY MPALA
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.:
[1] The applicants seek to set aside a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") rendered on July 3, 1997 which dismissed their claims to refugee status in Canada. The Board concluded that the proof adduced by the applicant was not credible.
[2] The applicants are citizens of Zaïre. They fear persecution by reason of their political opinions and membership in the Rassemblement des socialistes fédéralistes (RSF) party. They both joined the party and its student wing after hearing the party"s Provincial President, Professor Impanga of Lubumbashi University, speak about the goals and ideals of the party.
[3] The Board dismissed their claims to refugee status because it found their evidence to be lacking in credibility. The thrust of counsel for the applicants" argument is that the Board"s decision rests on its findings that many aspects of the story related by the applicants were implausible. Counsel submits that the Board failed to give a reasonable explanation of its findings of implausibility.
[4] The Board starts with the proposition that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicants did not demonstrate that they were members of the RSF or members of the youth wing of the party. The Board then proceeds to give a number of examples in support of its conclusion. It is in this respect that counsel for the applicants submits that the explanation offered by the Board is insufficient.
[5] I am of the view that the Board"s conclusion is not unreasonable. The following example will suffice to make the point. The applicants testified that they became members of the RSF party and its youth wing after they heard Professor Impanga speak at the University. They joined the party and then became members of the executive of the newly formed youth wing.
[6] The applicants testified that when they felt that their lives and security were in danger, they immediately went to Professor Impanga"s house for advice and guidance. They say Professor Impanga put them in touch with Mr. Nduba, the Party President for the region of Kasaï. When the applicants arrived at Mr. Nduba"s residence, they were informed that they were on the wanted list all over Zaïre. Mr. Nduba then informed the applicants that he had been in contact with a convent of priests situated 20 kilometres from his residence. The applicants were told that the priests were willing to allow the applicants to live in the convent for their protection.
[7] The applicants testified that they spent over a year at the convent. They then testified that in August 1995, they received a letter from the male applicant"s father who informed them that the political situation had calmed down by reason of the destitution of the Governor of the Province where the university was situated. The male applicant"s father informed the applicants that, in his opinion, they could now return and resume their university studies. On the basis of this letter, the applicants state that they decided to return to Lubumbashi to resume their studies and normal life. They arrived in Lubumbashi on November 25, 1995 and they were arrested on December 1, 1995.
[8] In respect of this evidence, the Board was of the view that it was implausible that the applicants would have returned to Lubumbashi on the basis of the male applicant"s father"s letter alone. I agree with the Board that this story is implausible. It is significant that once the applicants arrived at the convent, they never spoke, wrote, or communicated with Professor Impanga. The only evidence provided in this respect is that, when they arrived in Lubumbashi, they went to Professor Impanga"s house but found out that he had moved. Nowhere in their evidence do they indicate that they made any attempts to contact the professor. This, in my view, is unlikely and implausible bearing in mind that until they arrived at the convent, the applicants sought Professor Impanga"s advice at every turn.
[9] For these reasons, this application for judicial review shall be denied.
Ottawa, Ontario "MARC NADON"
September 17, 1998 JUDGE