Date: 20050517
Docket: IMM-8851-04
Citation: 2005 FC 679
Ottawa, Ontario, May 17, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICESHORE
BETWEEN:
AMIT BORATE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
[1] Just as a specialized tribunal must not examine facts out of context, simply eager to point out contradictions with "microscopic zeal"; a party at a judicial review hearing must not dissect each sentence in the reasons of a decision of a specialized tribunal. Both are exercises in futility.
Bits and pieces of thread of a narrative, together, weave a story for it to live. Separately, scrutinized, they remain stillborn. Nevertheless, just as each ship needs, at the very least, an anchor by which to moor, so does an individual need, at the very least, an anchor to corroborate the inherent logic of his narrative, no matter how different the country condition landscape, cast of characters, encyclopedia of references and dictionary of terms, appear.
JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
[2] This is an application for judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (Board) which, on October 4, 2004, dismissed the Applicant's claim for "refugee" status pursuant to section 96 and also that of a "person in need of protection" pursuant to subsection 97(1) of IRPA.
BACKGROUND
[3] An Indian citizen, the Applicant, Mr. Amit Borate, alleges a well-founded fear of persecution based on his imputed political opinion.
[4] The alleged facts are as follows. Mr. Borate lived and worked in Mumbai. On August 28, 2003, he was arrested and tortured by the police who was looking for his ex-roommate and co-worker named Feroz Khan, whom the police accused of being a militant and involved with the bomb blast in Mumbai on August 25, 2003.
[5] Mr. Borate was released on September 7, 2003 with the help of a local leader and after payment of a bribe. He was told to report any information about Mr. Khan.
[6] Mr. Borate was contacted by Mr. Khan who wanted money, ten to twelve days later.
[7] Afraid the police would find out, Mr. Borate's uncle sent him to live with a friend. With the help of an agent, Mr. Borate left India on October 1, 2003. He claimed refugee protection on October 22, 2003.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
[8] The Board found Mr. Borate's story not to be credible and listed several inconsistencies which led it to that conclusion. The Board also found that Mr. Borate did not show that state protection was not available to him in India.
ISSUE
[9] Was it patently unreasonable for the Board to conclude the Applicant was not credible?
ANALYSIS
[10] The Court underlines that the Board concluded, in its own words, that Mr. Borate did not prove that India was incapable of protecting him. Mr. Borate does not contest this conclusion and therefore, on this sole issue, the application can be dismissed. Nevertheless, the Court will continue with its analysis of the Board's credibility findings.
[11] Where credibility is at stake, the Board's mistake must be patently unreasonable for this Court to intervene (Aguebor v.( Canada) Minister of Employment and Immigration, Pissareva v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Singh v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)).
[12] The Board found the following elements to undermine Mr. Borate's credibility.
[13] First, the letter Mr. Borate provided from his former employer only indicates that Mr. Borate worked there, with no mention of Mr. Khan working at the same place. Yet, according to Mr. Borate, the police had sought Mr. Khan at work because he was suspected in regard to the bomb blast.
[14] Second, Mr. Borate filed a newspaper article about the bomb blast, but this article did not mention Feroz Khan although a warrant was apparently issued in his name. Furthermore, Mr. Borate said he thought he had seen a newspaper article with the name of Feroz Khan in it but did not provide it to the Board.
[15] Third, Mr. Borate gave his address when he was allegedly living with Mr. Khan as being Trangit Camp SN Mumbai; however, the only document filed in which his address appears is his election card, issued in 1999, which indicates another address. Mr. Borate had no proof that he had ever lived at Trangit Camp. He lost his driver's license and did not, despite the elections held since 1999, obtain a new election card by which to be re-registered in his new constituency in order to enable him to vote.
[16] Fourth, Mr. Borate provided no travel documents, stating that the agent had all of them returned to him.
[17] Finally, due to all of the above, the Board did not give any probative value to the two medical certificates and the uncle's affidavit as it did not believe Mr. Borate's story.
[18] The Board, as a trier of fact, an entity specialized in assessing the credibility and plausibility of facts invoked by refugee claimants, had considered all of the evidence and explanations given by Mr. Borate and had found his story lacked credibility. The Court finds no patently unreasonable error in the Board's reasoning and findings.
CONCLUSION
[19] For these reasons, the Court answers the question at issue in the negative. Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1. The application for judicial review be dismissed;
2. No question is certified.
"Michel M.J. Shore"
Judge
Email this Content