Date: 20040430
Docket: IMM-1871-03
Citation: 2004 FC 637
BETWEEN:
Jose Ricardo BETANZOS MARTINEZ
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 February 18, 2003, 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] Jose Ricardo Betanzos Martinez (the applicant) is a citizen of Mexico. The applicant arrived in Canada on March 5, 2002, and claimed protection from Canada on March 8, 2002. He alleges that he fears persecution based on his political opinions. Further, the applicant submits that he is a person in need of protection because he would be subjected to a danger of torture, to a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he were to return to Mexico.
[3] The IRB noted that the applicant was unable to provide details about the crucial elements of his claim. The panel also pointed out several contradictions, omissions and implausibities with regard to the important elements of the claim. Finally, the IRB noted that the documentary evidence did not make any mention of the Social Integration Movement of the State of Mexico (the Movement), or of the many demonstrations that the applicant claims to have organized.
[4] The applicant submits that the IRB unreasonably dismissed the documents attesting to his membership in the Movement. According to the reasons for the decision and the transcript of hearing, it is clear that the IRB assessed the applicant's documents but did not give them any probative value because his testimony was not credible. Once the IRB determines that the claimant is not credible, it is not sufficient that he file a document and state that it is genuine and truthful; some form of independent evidence corroborating this statement is necessary in order to compensate for the negative findings on credibility (see Hamid v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1293 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)). A review of the hearing transcripts indicates that, when the IRB questioned the applicant about the organization and the executive council of the Movement, he could not give satisfactory answers. In fact, it is evident from the testimony that the applicant was inventing names as he went along and that when he was asked to repeat his answers, they contradicted his previous answers. Therefore, because of the many contradictions in the applicant's testimony about the Movement and its governing council, the IRB reasonably determined that the applicant's documents were not credible.
[5] The applicant submits that the omission of the military raid is minor and in itself does not support the finding that he lacks credibility. In my view, the allegation of the military raid at the headquarters of the Movement, which was omitted from the applicant's original story, to the contrary, gives rise to a significant implausibility when we consider the allegation to the effect that the army had searched all the houses looking for members of the Movement.
[6] With respect to the allegation that the IRB unreasonably determined that the applicant lacked credibility because the documentary evidence does not mention the existence of the Movement, it is important to note that the presumption of truthfulness of the applicant's story can be shifted if the documentary evidence fails to mention what one would normally expect it to mention (Adu v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1995] F.C.J. No. 114 (F.C.A.) (QL)). Considering the purported importance of the Movement and the demonstrations that he organized, the IRB was well-founded in finding that the fact that the documentary evidence did not mention it at all affected the applicant's credibility.
[7] Finally, with respect to the IRB's findings concerning the applicant's residence, it is important to note that, according to the answer to question four of the applicant's additional information form, he lived in Mexico City between 1992 and 2002. The IRB also took the place of issue of his driver's licence into consideration in determining that he had always lived in Mexico City F.D. Since the applicant did not file any evidence in support of his subsequent allegations that he lived in Chiapas and in Guerrero between 1996 and 2001, the IRB's finding on this point is reasonable.
[8] In view of the many inconsistencies, implausibilities and contradictions related to the applicant's testimony, the IRB could reasonably find that his story was simply made up. Accordingly, the Court's intervention is not warranted and the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 30, 2004
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1871-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: Jose Ricardo BETANZOS MARTINEZ v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 1, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: Pinard J.
DATE OF REASONS: April 30, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Brigitte Poirier FOR THE APPLICANT
Marie-Claude Demers FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Brigitte Poirier FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content