Date: 20050309
Docket: IMM-84-04
Citation: 2005 FC 344
Ottawa, Ontario, this 9th day of March, 2005
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley
BETWEEN:
BLEDAR YZEIRI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicant is a twenty-seven-year-old Albanian national who claims a well-founded fear of persecution because he is a prominent and active member in the youth wing of the Democratic Party (DP).
[2] Mr. Yzeiri joined the Youth Forum of the DP in 1995. He was active in the party until 2000, when he was chosen to be the secretary for his region. He claims that he organized and attended events, made speeches, and campaigned for the DP. He also alleges that he was targeted as a result, and refers to a search of his home and an incident in which his mother was harmed by a grenade thrown at his home on the same night as he gave a political speech.
[3] Mr. Yzeiri arrived in Canada in February of 2002. Mr. Yzeiri's brother, Sali, was also a prominent member of the DP. He successfully claimed refugee status in Canada in 2000. Mr. Yzeiri claims that after his brother's departure from Albania, he was persecuted for his political beliefs and activism.
THE BOARD'S DECISION
[4] The Immigration and Refugee Board - Refugee Protection Division ("the Board") found that Mr. Yzeiri had exaggerated his political profile to bolster his claim and that his account of his persecution was not credible. In particular, it found that he had exaggerated his association with his brother's political activities to augment his own profile and that the incidents of alleged persecution in 2001 were not because of his political activities or involvement. It found that he would not be in danger in Albania today.
ISSUES
[5] The following issues were argued before me:
1. Did the Board err in its credibility findings by misconstruing or ignoring the evidence?
2. Did the Board misconstrue or ignore the evidence regarding country conditions?
ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS
2. Credibility
[6] Mr. Yzeiri submits that the finding that he exaggerated his political profile is perverse. There is no evidence that he relied on his association with his brother to bolster his claim; rather, he made it clear that he had no problems before his brother left and he took over the position as secretary. His brother confirmed this, and the Board itself indicated at the beginning of the hearing that it was concerned only with the incidents after his brother had left Albania.
[7] The Board relied on supposed omissions in the letter from the DP related to incidents in 2001 to conclude that Mr. Yzeiri was exaggerating. This reading of the letter is perverse. It is unreasonable to expect that a letter will contain information on every incident referred to in his claim. Mr. Yzeiri testified that he asked for a letter to verify his activities and state his reasons for leaving Albania. That is what was provided.
[8] The finding that searching Mr. Yzeiri's house, arresting him and threatening him was not political persecution ignores the evidence of his testimony.
[9] The Board's conclusion that the grenade that harmed his mother had nothing to do with his political involvement also ignores the evidence, and the fact that it is not mentioned in the DP letter is not determinative. The Board ignored the evidence that neighbours told him they saw Socialist supporters running away from his house immediately following the attack.
[10] The fact that his mother's medical note came from a hospital, not the doctor's house, was explained, and it was unreasonable for the Board to disbelieve this explanation and the contents of the note. The Board also ignored evidence related to the harassment Mr. Yzeiri suffered on the streets and ignored his testimony regarding the beating by Socialist Party supporters acting in concert with the police.
[11] The respondent submits that credibility and plausibility findings are exclusively within the discretion of the Board: Aguebor v. Canada (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.); Ezi-Ashi v. Canada [1994] F.C.J. No. 401 (T.D.).
[12] The Board's credibility assessment was based on all of the evidence and particularly on problems internal to the applicant's testimony. The test of the truth of a story is its harmony with the preponderance of probabilities: Shahamati v. Canada [1994] F.C.J. No. 415 (C.A.); Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.).
[13] It was reasonably open to the Board to find that the applicant exaggerated his association with his brother to augment his own political profile, the respondent argues. Mr. Yzeiri's PIF linked his case to that of his brother's. Having opened the door, he cannot now complain that adverse inferences were drawn by the Board concerning the lack of corroboration provided by Sali's claim.
[14] The Board's concern arose from the PIF evidence that Mr. Yzeiri assisted and protected his brother. However, Sali made no reference to his brother's role in assisting or protecting him in his own PIF. In the respondent's view, it was open to the Board to find that the association with Sali's activities was an exaggeration.
[15] The weight given to the letter from the DP is a matter within the Board's specialized jurisdiction, the respondent argues. The Board can rely on criteria such as rationality and common sense: Takhar v. Canada [1999] F.C.J. No. 240 (T.D.); Tekin v. Canada 2003 FCT 357; Shahamati, supra. It is not enough to show that another conclusion is possible, but that no other conclusion is reasonable: Zaidi v. Canada (1993), 72 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.); Miranda v. Canada (1993), 63 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.).
[16] The letter indicated that Mr. Yzeiri was a member of the DP from 1995 to 2000 only. It made no mention of important incidents in 2001 that he claimed had been reported to the DP. The absence of evidence where one would normally expect to find it is sufficient to refute the presumption of truthfulness: Adu v. Canada [1995] F.C.J. No. 114 (C.A.).
[17] The applicant's belief about why the police searched his house and arrested him need not be accepted by the Board: Aguebor, supra; Orelien v. Canada, [1992] 1 F.C. 592 (C.A.).
[18] The Board was entitled to find that the grenade incident was not due to Mr Yzeiri's political involvement. The incident and the alleged precipitating speech were not mentioned in the DP letter. The Board was entitled to disbelieve that the speech ever happened, and consequently the attack had no political overtones. The discrepancy in the medical note also contributed to the lack of credibility of the incident: Aguebor, supra.
[19] The Board was entitled to come to the conclusions it did regarding Mr. Yzeiri's mother's medical note: Tekin, supra; Takhar, supra. The note contradicted the oral testimony. The Board is not obligated to accept the explanations of the applicant. It was open to it to find that the applicant was exaggerating the extent of political violence in Albania to bolster his claim: Sheikh v. Canada 2002 FCT 769; Razzaq v. Canada 2003 FC 864.
[20] I find merit in only one of the applicant's submissions. The Board in fact made no mention of the evidence that Mr. Yzeiri's neighbours told him the attack on his house was carried out by Socialist supporters. However, I would not find that this omission was sufficiently important to be determinative. There were no letters or statements in evidence from any of these neighbours. The Board was not bound to believe Mr. Yzeiri's bare assertion about what his neighbours had said in any case, particularly considering the other credibility concerns it had. The Board's major concern was that the letter from the DP failed to mention any incidents in 2001. That in itself would be sufficient to find that the incidents did not occur or did not occur for the reasons claimed by Mr. Yzeiri.
[21] On the whole, I agree with the respondent's submissions. I find that the Board's conclusions regarding Mr. Yzeiri's claim were not patently unreasonable.
3. Misconstruing or ignoring evidence
[22] Mr. Yzeiri submits that the Board ignored documentary evidence that directly contradicted its conclusions regarding country conditions. He points to a document submitted by his counsel at the hearing, consisting of excerpts from the documentary evidence before the Board. He alleges that the Board ignored the totality of the evidence and asserts that there are significant and ongoing problems related to the persecution of political opponents and mistreatment by the Albanian police.
[23] The Respondent submits that the Board fairly assessed the documentary evidence and its conclusions were reasonably open to it. It did not need to refer to every piece of contradictory evidence, and there is a presumption that it considered the totality of the evidence in reaching its conclusions.
[24] I agree that the applicant has not pointed to important evidence that was ignored by the Board. A review of the evidence indicates that only those DP members who are politically prominent need fear persecution for political reasons. In Albania today, the political climate is more stable than it was in the past. The Board rejected Mr. Yzeiri's evidence that he was a prominent DP leader, so the conclusion that he was not in particular danger as a DP member was reasonably open to it.
[25] For the foregoing reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. No questions were proposed for certification, and none will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No questions are certified.
" Richard G. Mosley "
F.C.J.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-84-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: BLEDAR YZEIRI
AND
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: November 23, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY : The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley
DATED: March 9, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Yehuda Levinson FOR THE APPLICANT
Matina Karvellas FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
YEHUDA LEVISON FOR THE APPLICANT
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
Email this Content