Date: 20040203
Docket: IMM-6618-02
Citation: 2004 FC 158
BETWEEN:
HAIFA MTANIOS LICHAA KAIROUZ
ELIE KAIROUZ
VANESSA KAIROUZ
Applicants
- and -
THE 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 28, 2002, that the applicants are not Convention refugees or "persons 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 (the Act).
[2] The principal applicant, Haifa Lichaa Kairouz, and her two minor children, Elie Kairouz and Vanessa Kairouz, are citizens of Lebanon. They allege that they fear persecution because of their political opinion, the applicant's Christianity and their membership in a particular social group, the family. The applicants allege that they fear the Lebanese and Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon.
[3] The IRB determined that the applicants were not Convention refugees or "persons in need of protection" because their story was not credible.
[4] After hearing the parties' counsel and reviewing the evidence, it appears that the IRB correctly identified several inconsistencies between the principal applicant's testimony and the information contained on the Personal Information Form (PIF), particularly with respect to the date on which the applicants' problems began and the reason for the principal applicant's arrest on May 29, 2001. Moreover, it appears that the applicant failed to mention several important facts in her PIF, including the injuries suffered by her daughter, during the encounters in 1998 and in 2001, and the fact that she had to pay US$5,000 in order to leave the country where she says that she feared persecution. The transcript of the hearing before the IRB demonstrates, furthermore, that this panel took the applicants' explanations into consideration, but it simply found that they were inadequate.
[5] It is well-established law, in matters of credibility and assessment of the facts, that this Court cannot substitute its decision for that of a specialized administrative tribunal such as the IRB when, as in this case, the inferences and findings are generally based on important evidence in the record. Without necessarily fully endorsing the analysis made by the IRB, I do not find anything patently unreasonable in its decision.
[6] With respect to the argument to the effect that the panel did not evaluate the applicants' claim based on the principal applicant's religion, a simple review of the decision indicates the contrary, considering that this particular basis was mentioned expressly and that grounds related to political opinion are closely connected with those of religion. Whatever the case may be, the panel's perception that the applicant was not a credible witness in fact amounts to a finding, in the particular circumstances of this case, that there is no credible basis for the claim (see Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 (C.A.)).
[7] In addition, as the applicant said that she had decided to leave her country on May 31, 2001, and as she did not begin to take steps to obtain a Canadian visa until July 25, 2001, I do not think that it was unreasonable for the panel to find that this behaviour is inconsistent with the fear of persecution that was alleged.
[8] Finally, with respect to the applicants' allegation that their counsel waived section 97 of the Act without consulting them, it appears that the principal applicant was named as the designated representative of her children before the beginning of the testimony. Moreover, there was no objection to this at the hearing. It was therefore not unreasonable for the panel, under the circumstances, to accept the counsel's waiver.
[9] For all of these reasons, the intervention of this Court is not warranted and the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[10] After considering the written representations filed by the respective counsel for the parties, I agree with the respondent's counsel that there is no question for certification in this case.
"Yvon Pinard"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 3, 2004
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6618-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: HAIFA MTANIOS LICHAA KAIROUZ, ELIE KAIROUZ, VANESSA KAIROUZ v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: December18, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: February 3, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Michel LeBrun FOR THE APPLICANTS
Claudia Gagnon FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michel LeBrun FOR THE APPLICANTS
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content