Montréal, Quebec, November 9, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
Applicant
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BEAUDRY J.
[1] This application for judicial review was filed under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), with regard to a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board or the panel), dated March 22, 2005.
ISSUE
[2] Did the panel commit a patently unreasonable error in its assessment of the applicant’s credibility?
[3] For the reasons set out below, I will answer this question in the negative and dismiss the application for judicial review.
FACTS
[4] The applicant is a citizen of Mexico. He alleges that he is a refugee owing to harassment and police persecution to which he was subjected.
[5] Between May and July 2003, the applicant and some of his friends had dealings with the police, who took money from them.
[6] Between July 2003 and January 2004, the applicant spent time in Canada as a visitor.
[7] When he returned to Mexico, his friends told him that the police harassment was continuing. The police asked the applicant for money on three more occasions: April 1, 4 and 7, 2004. They committed violent acts against the applicant and his friends.
[8] On the morning of April 8, 2004, the applicant tried to file a complaint against the police with the Prosecutor’s Office, but to no avail. He did not return home afterwards. His mother received threatening phone calls during the afternoon, and her home was placed under police surveillance. This is when the applicant decided to leave the country. After he left, his mother told him that the police had come to the house on several occasions to look for him.
[9] The applicant arrived in Canada on April 19, 2004 and claimed refugee status on May 10, 2004.
IMPUGNED DECISION
[10] The panel concluded that the applicant’s statement was not credible for the following reasons:
§ The applicant claims to have consulted a lawyer on April 8, the same day he tried to file a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office. The lawyer gave him a letter confirming his visit, on that very day. The same lawyer then mailed him an identical letter a few days later. However, the two letters are dated October 8, 2004. The applicant claims that this is a simple error, and that the initial letter was indeed drafted on April 8, 2004.
§ This visit is not mentioned in his Personal Information Form (PIF), and the panel believed that the applicant did not adequately explain how he spent his time on April 8, 2004. In particular, he contradicted himself as to the time he left his home to hide at his aunt’s house, first saying that his mother had received threatening phone calls in the afternoon, and then saying that she had received them in the evening. The applicant contends that the panel did not take his explanations into account, as the calls in question took place around 5 p.m. – the time when late afternoon becomes early evening.
§ Other contradictions were raised by the decision-maker as regards the applicant’s statement to the Immigration Officer concerning the time the applicant began to have problems with the police.
§ The panel also took into account the time that elapsed between the applicant’s arrival in Canada and his claiming refugee status.
ANALYSIS
[11] The standard applicable in similar cases is that of patent unreasonableness. As Mr. Justice Pelletier wrote in Conkova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 300 (F.C.T.D.) (QL):
The standard of review of decisions of the CRDD is generally patent unreasonableness except for questions involving the interpretation of a statute when the standard becomes correctness. Sivasamboo v. Canada [1995] 1 F.C. 741 (T.D.), (1994) 87 F.T.R. 46, Pushpanathan v. Canada [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 . . . .
[12] In Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 732 (F.C.A.) (QL), the Federal Court of Appeal advocated judicial deference when reviewing decisions based on the issue of credibility:
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.
[13] In the case under review, it does not seem to me to be patently unreasonable that the panel drew negative inferences regarding the date of the lawyer’s letter to the applicant.
[14] Regarding the way the claimant spent his time on April 8, 2004, the panel wrote:
When asked at what point in the day this first death threat by telephone had been made, he answered [Translation] “in the afternoon.” However, his account mentioned receiving threatening telephone calls in the evening: [Translation] “From the evening of the day we took steps with the Office of the Prosecutor, we started receiving threatening phone calls, and my home was under police surveillance,” (translated as reproduced from the account in the Personal Information Form (PIF)). Confronted on this point, the claimant became confused: [Translation] “no, on the same day, the same evening, it was written in those words, the same night.” All of this taints the claimant’s credibility and the panel does not believe the events alleged to have occurred on April 8, 2004 . . . .
[15] A review of the case shows that the panel considered the applicant’s explanations regarding the inconsistencies and contradictions in his story, but did not find them credible.
[16] The panel believed that the three weeks that elapsed between the applicant’s arrival in Canada and his claiming refugee status contributed to the applicant’s lack of credibility. This gap was noted by the panel as one factor among others. In Heer v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1988] F.C.J. No. 330 (F.C.A.) (QL), the Federal Court of Appeal specified that the delay preceding the filing of an application was a relevant factor which the panel could consider.
While being of the view that the Immigration Appeal Board may have placed undue emphasis on the importance of the delay in making the claim for refugee status herein, we agree with the Board, nevertheless, that such a circumstance is an important factor which the Board is entitled to consider in weighing a claim for refugee status. On the record, we are unable to say that the Board committed any reviewable error that would entitle the Court to interfere with its decision . . . .
[17] The Court is of the opinion that there is no cause for intervention in this case.
[18] The parties decided not to submit questions for certification. There are no questions to be certified.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review be dismissed. There is no question to be certified.
Judge
Certified true translation
Magda Hentel
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2442-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: TORRES CARRANZA MARIO ARTURO
v. THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 8, 2005
AND ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
APPEARANCES:
Jorge Colasurdo FOR THE APPLICANT
Mario Blanchard FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jorge Colasurdo FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec