Date: 20050714
Docket: IMM-10609-04
Citation: 2005 FC 962
BETWEEN:
DIANA AIDA GARCIA CHAVEZ
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 December 8, 2004, that the
applicant is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection" within the
meaning of sections 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Diana Aida Garcia Chavez (the applicant) is a citizen of Mexico. She is 24 years old and was a student until she left for Canada. She alleges that she was persecuted for her refusal to participate in corruption. The IRB did not believe her story.
[3] In this case, many inconsistencies between the applicant's testimony, her Personal Information Form (PIF) and the rest of the evidence justified the IRB's finding regarding the applicant's lack of credibility. It is sufficient to point out the following:
[4] First, in support of the allegation that the applicant and her brother consulted a lawyer and that the lawyer refused to take their case, the applicant filed a letter written on the letterhead of a law firm and bearing an illegible signature. The document, issued two days after the consultation, informs the applicant and her brother in writing that the law firm will not take their case. Yet, in her PIF, the applicant emphasized that it was over the telephone that the lawyer had informed her that he did not want to take her case. The applicant told Immigration Canada that the lawyer did not want to take her case because he had been threatened, yet, in her PIF, she stated that the lawyer had some problems. In the letter from the lawyer, the author does not make any reference to a threat or a problem that he may have had to deal with between March 17 and 19, i.e. between his consultation with the applicant and his firm's refusal to take her case. Under the circumstances, it was not patently unreasonable for the IRB not to assign probative value to the lawyer's letter.
[5] Second, the applicant said that she had been the victim of an unjust dismissal; in support of that allegation, she filed a termination of employment document. Yet, that document indicates that she resigned. Confronted, the applicant testified that she had resigned against her will. In her PIF, the applicant wrote : [translation] "On September 30, 2003, I left the presidential offices without being paid at all for my wrongful dismissal". The document confirming her resignation includes a financial summary of what had been paid to her on November 19, 2003, for her resignation the preceding October 1. It is clear that the inconsistences between this document and the applicant's testimony undermine her credibility.
[6] Finally, in her PIF and to Immigration Canada, the applicant said that she was a coordinator at the office of the President of the Republic; yet, on the document that she adduced into evidence regarding her employment, she was described simply as a secretary assigned to the coordination of presidential tours office. Questioned on that document, the applicant explained that the reference to "chauffeur" under the category heading indicated that her salary as a public employee was equivalent to that of a chauffeur. That, added to all of the reasons set out above, reasonably led the IRB to believe that 24 years old, a university student until she left the country, employed at the coordination of presidential tours secretariat for awhile, the applicant wanted to build up a story that, originally, had little substance.
[7] With regard to credibility, this Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the IRB's unless the applicant can show that its decision is based on an erroneous finding of fact, made in a perverse or capricious manner, or without regard for the evidence before it (see paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). The IRB is a specialized tribunal with the power to assess the plausibility and the credibility of testimony so long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not unreasonable (Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and the grounds are expressed clearly and comprehensibly (Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 199 (F.C.A.)). Also, 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 on an important element of their claim can amount to a finding that there is no credible evidence to support the claim.
[8] Applying these principles to this case, the Court's intervention is not warranted and 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-10609-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: DIANA AIDA GARCIA CHAVEZ v. MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 22, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER: Pinard J.
DATE OF REASONS: July 14, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Peter F. Guarnieri FOR THE APPLICANT
Simone Truong FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
LATA & GUARNIERI FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content