Date: 20041223
Docket: IMM-8365-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1772
BETWEEN:
DIABO Boureima
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 of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated on October 8, 2003, wherein the Board found the applicant not to be a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Boureima Diabo (the applicant) is a citizen of Burkina Faso. He arrived in Canada on June 4, 2002 and claimed refugee status on June 28, 2002. He alleges a well-founded fear of persecution because of the police and his participation in demonstrations.
[3] The Board based its decision on a negative credibility finding. In questions of credibility, this Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Board unless the applicant can demonstrate that the Board's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). It has been established that the Board is a specialized tribunal capable of assessing the plausibility and credibility of a testimony, to the extent that the inferences which it draws from it are not unreasonable (Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and its reasons are expressed clearly and comprehensibly (Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 130 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.)).
[4] In evaluating the evidence, the Board concluded that demonstrations occurred in 1999, but security forces did not interfere. It is not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the applicant is not credible since the primary basis of his claim is on his alleged arrests in 1998, 1999, and the demonstration in June 2000 whereas the evidence does not corroborate this. The applicant points out that the Board erred by referring to a 1999 report for proof of a demonstration in 1998. Even if the Board had found there to be a demonstration in 1998, the documentary evidence indicates that there were demonstrations in December 2000, but none in June 2000, and it could not have been possible for the applicant to have been arrested in 1999 because security forces did not interfere. These inconsistencies undermine the applicant's credibility.
[5] Furthermore, the applicant's testimony revealed that he received his passport and travel documents on the same day, however the passport is dated April 17, 2001 and the identity card is dated October 27, 2000. When confronted with this, the applicant did not give a satisfactory answer.
[6] The Board also concluded that the applicant is not credible because he declared he stayed with his mother following the demonstrations in 2000, whereas his Personal Information Form indicated that he stayed with a friend, and did not mention his mother. I have reviewed the transcript of the Board hearing and there is nothing that indicates that the applicant declared he stayed with his mother after the incident in 2000. The Board's error in making this conclusion, however, is immaterial, as the evidence suggests the Board would have found the applicant not credible regardless of the existence of this statement.
[7] Following the alleged incidents of June 2000, the applicant stayed with a friend, made trips to Mali and Togo, and waited two years before leaving his country to seek refugee status in Canada, where he waited another 14 days before doing so. A delay in seeking refugee status is not a decisive factor in itself, however the Board may take it into account when assessing the statements and actions of a claimant (see Huerta v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1994), 157 N.R. 225 (F.C.A.)). Furthermore, it is my opinion that the Board did not err in concluding that an Internal Flight Alternative existed, since the applicant stated he experienced no problems while staying at his friends. Nor was the Board unreasonable in concluding that the applicant's actions were inconsistent with that of someone who fears persecution in his country, as the applicant could have claimed refugee status in either Mali or Togo and could have left Burkina Faso much earlier than 2002.
[8] It does not appear from the evidence that the Board committed any reviewable error in its disposition of this case.
[9] It is for these reasons that I dismiss the application for judicial review.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 23, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-8365-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: DIABO Boureima v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 23, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: December 23, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Me Styliani Markaki FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Michel Pépin FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Styliani Markaki FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content