Date: 20010529
Docket: IMM-3948-00
Ottawa, Ontario, May 29, 2001
Before: J.E. Dubé J.
Between:
FARID SLIMANI
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20010529
Docket: IMM-3948-00
Neutral reference: 2001 FCT 543
Between:
FARID SLIMANI
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J.
[1] This application for judicial review was filed against a decision by the Refugee Division of the Immigration Board ("the Refugee Division") on July 10, 2000 that the plaintiff is not a Convention refugee.
1. Facts
[2] The plaintiff, a bachelor aged 31, is a citizen of Algeria. He alleges to have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his membership in a particular social group, in this case the intellectuals in his country who were the target of terrorists. He obtained his degree as a government engineer in September 1992 and was responsible for managing his father's business, a metalworking undertaking.
[3] In 1994, after his brother was injured by terrorists and at that time he revealed he had a brother who was a government engineer, certain persons came to the plaintiff's residence to see him. He left the country for Tunisia shortly afterwards. In July 1998, the family residence was burned down by individuals who were suspected of being terrorists. In August of that year the plaintiff went back to his country to look after his family. As a result of pressure brought to bear on him, the plaintiff managed to arrange for his family members to immigrate to Canada. He subsequently looked after liquidating the property of the family business, while himself remaining in hiding.
[4] The plaintiff later learned that two of his former university colleagues had been killed and that a third, named Samir, was receiving threatening letters. During that period a relative allegedly found in the family home anonymous letters addressed to the plaintiff personally. In panic, the latter showed the letters to Samir and left the country.
[5] In January 2000, the plaintiff, using a forged passport, joined his family in Canada. On March 6, a month after his refugee application, he learned that his friend Samir had just had his throat cut.
2. Decision of Refugee Division
[6] At the outset, the Refugee Division drew the following general conclusion:
[TRANSLATION]
His testimony is replete with inconsistencies and improbabilities: his conduct was not that of a person who feared for his life and his memory of the dates of events leading him to make the claim, especially those of the issuing or receipt of the threatening letters, was completely deficient.
[7] The Refugee Division went on to set out a logical, almost Cartesian, analysis of the evidence, arranged under the following headings and subheadings:
(A) Events leading to his flight
1. Murder of two engineering colleagues
2. Threatening letters
3. Murder of Samir
(B) No evidence of return to Algeria
1. No passport
2. Torn up forged passport
3. No documents on arson
4. No document on liquidation of property
[8] After a careful and concise review of each of the aforementioned points in the evidence, the Refugee Division concluded as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
For all these reasons, the tribunal seriously doubts the plaintiff's return to Algeria after his departure in 1994 and so does not believe this story.
3. Plaintiff's arguments
[9] Counsel for the plaintiff, in an eloquent and extensive argument, reviewed the evidence in the record point by point and sought to show that in each case the Refugee Division had erred in assessing the plaintiff's credibility. He showed that in several cases the plaintiff's allegations could be interpreted in a credible way, contrary to what was concluded by the tribunal. He invited the Court to rule that the Refugee Division's decision was clearly arbitrary and without foundation.
4. Analysis
[10] The Court is not required here to affirm or reverse each of the interpretations adopted by the tribunal, but to consider the overall analysis of all the evidence. Reading the reasons for decision and transcript of the questions and answers at the hearing indicates that the general assessment of the evidence by the tribunal was not patently unreasonable. Even if some parts of the evidence could support interpretations more favourable to the plaintiff, the fact remains that the Refugee Division was justified in concluding that the plaintiff's testimony [TRANSLATION] "was replete with inconsistencies and improbabilities". The Tribunal was in a position to conclude that the plaintiff's explanations disclosed conduct inconsistent with any subjective fear, and hence that he lacked credibility.
[11] It should be borne in mind "that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony".[1]
5. Disposition
[12] Accordingly, this application for judicial review cannot be allowed. In my opinion, there is no question of general importance to be certified here.
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 29, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: IMM-3948-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: FARID SLIMANI v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 23, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: DUBÉ J.
DATED: May 29, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Denis Buron FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Michel Synnott FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Denis Buron FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
[1] Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.).
Email this Content