Date: 20050331
Docket: IMM-5709-04
Citation: 2005 FC 426
BETWEEN:
Awad Moussa HERSI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), dated June 1, 2004, that the applicant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. (2001), c. 27 (the Act), or a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Act.
[2] Awad Moussa Hersi (the applicant) alleges that he is a citizen of the Republic of Djibouti and has a well-founded fear of persecution in his country owing to his race, nationality and perceived political opinions, as he supports the Democratic Renewal Party.
[3] On May 1, 2001, the applicant's first claim for refugee protection in Canada was rejected because of his lack of credibility. Leave to apply for judicial review of this decision was denied on September 6, 2001, given the applicant's failure to produce his application file. The applicant left Canada for the United States on February 13, 2002. He returned in May of that year and again claimed refugee protection in Canada.
[4] It is important to reproduce the conclusion of the impugned decision:
CONCLUSION
After analysing all the evidence, and in light of the claimant's lack of credibility, the panel finds that he is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection."
Moreover, aside from the evidence it finds not to be credible, the panel has no other evidence before it, arising from either the documentation on the country or any other source, as to potentially find that the claimant is a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection."
The panel hereby rejects the claim for refugee protection made by Awad Moussa HERSI.
[5] The following contradictions and implausibilities led the IRB to conclude as it did: the applicant's passport, seized by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, stated that he was a technician, which contradicted his testimony to the effect that he was an electrician by training. Exhibit P-7, an unsworn letter, indicated that his family residence had been destroyed and that some family members were dead; however, neither the applicant's oral nor written testimony mentioned that any members of his family had died. The applicant testified that his sisters and brothers sought safety in Ethiopia; however, when confronted with his previous testimony to the effect that one of his two brothers was incarcerated and could not be in Ethiopia, the applicant claimed not to have said this. The arrest of the applicant's father and half brother is the crucial element of his second claim, and it is implausible that he did not request verification of his father's and half brother's status.
[6] Such a perception of an applicant's lack of credibility may lead to the conclusion that there is no sufficiently credible evidence to justify the claim in question (see Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 at page 244 (C.A.)).
[7] Moreover, the fact that such a tribunal concluded that the applicant lacked credibility could be sufficient in and of itself to conclude that the applicant was not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Act (see Ziany Rahim v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (January 18, 2005), IMM-2729-04, 2005 FC 18 at paragraph 20).
[8] In my view, this jurisprudence enabled the IRB to conclude as it did, given the significance of the contradictions and implausibilities noted, which were not contested.
[9] Finally, as the IRB has patently linked the applicant's lack of credibility to both section 96 and section 97 of the Act, the applicant's arguments that the panel incorrectly applied the doctrine of res judicata are without merit (Ahmat Mahamat Al-Bachir v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (October 19, 2004), IMM-544-04, 2004 FC 1440 at paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13).
[10] For these reasons, the intervention of this Court is not warranted, and the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"YVON PINARD"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 31, 2005
Certified true translation
Magda Hentel
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5709-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: Awad Moussa HERSI
v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 24, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: March 31, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Viken G. Artinian FOR THE APPLICANT
Michel Pépin FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Joseph W. Allen FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content