Date : 20050714
Docket: IMM-10289-04
Citation: 2005 FC 964
BETWEEN:
FATOUMATA TOURÉ
Applicant
-and-
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 (the IRB), dated November 2, 2004, that the applicant is not a "Convention Refugee" or a "person in need of protection" under sections 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Fatoumata Touré (the applicant) is 23 years old and a citizen of Guinea. She alleges that she has a well-founded fear based on her membership in a particular group, i.e. women in Guinea. The IRB based its decision on the applicant's lack of credibiity.
[3] In fact, the IRB determined that the applicant is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection" for the following reasons:
- The claimant's evidence is not credible or plausible. She alleges that she is afraid of her husband, but has no documents to establish that her marriage took place. She says she was married in 1999, but did not join her husband in the United States until 2001. She did not file a passport or any other document to establish that she had travelled to the United States.
- The claimant alleges that she lived in Orange, New Jersey, but her sole identity card bears an address in Maryland. She gave the immigration officer a non-existent address in the United States and at the hearing she was unable to provide her address or telephone number in Orange, New Jersey.
- The claimant never made a claim in the United States and the panel does not understand why she did not do so if the protection offered by the United States is similar to the protection offered in Canada. Further, the claimant never filed a complaint with the police against her husband.
[4] It is settled law that in matters of credibility and assessment of the evidence, this Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the IRB when, as in this case, the applicant fails to establish that the administrative tribunal based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). After reviewing the evidence, I am satisfied moreover that the inferences drawn by the specialized tribunal that is the IRB could reasonably have been drawn (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)).
[5] Finally, the Federal Court of Appeal held in Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, that a tribunal's perception that a claimant is not credible may amount to a finding that there is no credible evidence for that claim.
[6] For all of these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 14, 2005
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET : IMM-10289-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: FATOUMATA TOURÉv. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING : Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 23, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER : Pinard J.
DATE OF REASONS: July 14, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Lia Cristinariu FOR THE APPLICANT
Annie Van Der Meerschen FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Lia Cristinariu FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content