Coronel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 186

Date: 20040204

Docket: IMM-44-03

Citation: 2004 FC 186

Ottawa, Ontario, this 4^th day of February 2004

Present:           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY                          

BETWEEN:

                                             MARIA DEL PILAR FLORES CORONEL

                                      GERARDO PAUL ANDRE TEMOCHE FLORES

                                          AUGUSTINA CORONEL SOTO DE FLORES

                                                                                                                                                      Applicants

                                                                                 and

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                      REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]                 Ms. Maria Del Pilar Flores Coronel claims that she was threatened and assaulted by members of the Shining Path guerrilla group in Peru. She says they extorted money from her and demanded that she make available to them a gymnasium at the school where she was principal. She reported some of the mistreatment she endured to police, but not all of it. She said she feared the police because they sometimes assume that those who report crimes by the Shining Path are actually members.

[2]    Ms. Flores fled to Canada with her son in May 2000 and claimed refugee status here. Her mother joined them later. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed Ms. Flores' claim, characterizing her version of events as implausible and her testimony as lacking in credibility.

[3]    Ms. Flores argues that the Board failed to explain properly why it discounted her evidence. She asks for a new hearing before a different panel. I agree that the Board's reasons are inadequate and will grant her request.

[4]    The Board came to the following conclusions.

(i)          Ms. Flores said that the Shining Path approached her in 1998. The group had been active throughout the 1990s but she did not know why it did not contact her sooner. She suggested that they may have been preparing to move into urban areas. The Board said her answer was "unsatisfactory".

(ii)         Ms. Flores anonymously reported two individuals to the police. They were arrested. She said that she did not know any further details about their arrests or the duration of their detention. The Board considered it implausible that she would not contact the police to make inquiries about them.

(iii) Ms. Flores described an assault by two unidentified men in October 1999. She did not report it to the police. However, she did go to the police again in May 2000 after two unidentified women threatened her outside her apartment. Soon after, her husband was assaulted on his way home from work. He reported the incident to the police. The Board wondered why she sometimes went to the police to report mistreatment, but not always. She explained that she feared the police but, by 2000, felt "trapped" and felt she had no other choice. The Board said, simply, that it did not believe any of these events took place.

(iv) Ms. Flores stated that she did, after several requests and threats, allow the Shining Path to use the school gymnasium, even though it was against the rules. She did not advise her superiors or the Ministry of Education of the situation. The Board considered her failure to do so implausible.

[5]    The Board did not explain its finding that Ms. Flores was untruthful. Nor did it give reasons for finding parts of her testimony implausible. I cannot conclude, therefore, that the Board met its duty to state its credibility findings in "clear and unmistakable terms": Hilo v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] F.C.J. No. 228 (QL) (F.C.A.).

[6]    Accordingly, this application for judicial review is allowed. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify and none is stated.

                                                                        JUDGMENT

THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:

1.    The application for judicial review is allowed. The matter is returned for re-hearing before a different panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

2.    No question of general importance is stated.

                                                                                                                                      "James W. O'Reilly"     

                                                                                                                                                               Judge

                                                                     FEDERAL COURT

                          SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                             IMM-44-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           MARIA DEL PILAR FLORES CORONEL, GERARDO PAUL ANDRE TEMOCHE FLORES, AUGUSTINA CORONEL SOTO DE FLORES v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                     Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                       February 2, 2004

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AND JUDGMENT BY:                     The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly

DATED:                                                February 4, 2004

APPEARANCES BY:

Jacques Despatis                                                                            FOR THE APPLICANTS

Lynn Marchildon                                                                            FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

JACQUES DESPATIS

Ottawa, Ontario                                                                             FOR THE APPLICANTS

MORRIS ROSENBERG

Deputy Attorney General of Canada     FOR THE RESPONDENT