Diaz-Suarez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 838

Date: 20060629

Docket: IMM-6347-05

Citation: 2006 FC 838

Toronto, Ontario, June 29, 2006

PRESENT:      The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell

BETWEEN:

GERARDO ALBERTO DIAZ-SUAREZ

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                In the present application, the Applicant, a citizen of Colombia and volunteer at a daycare for underprivileged children from a low-income neighbourhood in Bogota, claims refugee protection on the basis of threats from the FARC. The Applicant's claim is based on fear of FARC due to their threats of harm to him and his family because he refused to supply personal data about the families whose children attended the daycare which he had access to. Therefore, the threats are the key element in the Applicant's claim for protection. With respect to the Applicant's evidence about the threats, the RPD found as follows:

The panel finds it implausible that the FARC would spend years trying to obtain the assistance of the claimant in order to obtain basic data about these impoverished families. Furthermore, if the families were living in such primitive conditions, the panel finds it implausible that they would even have telephone numbers and addresses. When this implausibility was put to the claimant, he explained that even though they were poor, these people would still have a home telephone number or a telephone number at work. Having considered his explanation, the panel still finds the scenario implausible.

(Tribunal Decision, p.4)

[2]                In my opinion, this finding does not meet the test for implausibility findings as stated by Justice Muldoon in Valtchev v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1131 at para. 7 as follows:

A tribunal may make adverse findings of credibility based on the implausibility of an applicant's story provided the inferences drawn can be reasonably said to exist.    However, plausibility findings should be made only    in the clearest of cases,    i.e., if    the facts as presented are outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected, or where the documentary evidence demonstrates that the events could not have happened in the manner asserted by the claimant.    A tribunal must be careful when rendering a decision based on a lack of plausibility because refugee claimants come from diverse cultures, and actions which appear implausible when judged from Canadian standards might be plausible when considered from within the claimant's milieu. [see L. Waldman, Immigration Law and Practice (Markham, ON: Butterworths, 1992) at 8.22]

[3]                Therefore, I find that the RPD's decision was rendered in reviewable error.

ORDER

            Accordingly, for the reasons provided, I set aside the RPD's decision and refer the matter back to a differently constituted panel for re-determination.

"Douglas R. Campbell"

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           IMM-6347-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                         GERARDO ALBERTO DIAZ-SUAREZ v. THE

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                       June 29, 2006

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                             CAMPBELL J.            

DATED:                                              June 29, 2006              

APPEARANCES:                              

Douglas Lehrer                                                  FOR THE APPLICANT

Greg G. George                                                 FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          

VanderVennen Lehrer

Barristers & Solicitors

Toronto, Ontario                                               FOR THE APPLICANT

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada                  FOR THE RESPONDENT