Date: 20010529
Docket: IMM-3868-00
Ottawa, Ontario, May 29, 2001
Before: J.E. Dubé J.
Between:
DIANE MWADI
ANNA MUJINGA
Plaintiffs
- 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-3868-00
Neutral reference: 2001 FCT 544
Between:
DIANE MWADI
ANNA MUJINGA
Plaintiffs
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J.
[1] This application for judicial review is from a decision by the Refugee Division of the Immigration Board ("the Refugee Division") on June 21, 2000 that the plaintiff and her daughter are not Convention refugees.
1. Facts
[2] Both are citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They arrived in Canada on June 17, 1999. They alleged they had a well-founded fear of persecution for their political opinions. The Refugee Division dismissed the claim on the ground that the claimant had not established her identity. The tribunal asked for an expert opinion on the identity card. The result of the analysis indicated that the card bore all the signs of a forged document. The analysis was forwarded to the claimant, who replied by a letter from her counsel. The tribunal concluded that the letter provided [TRANSLATION] "no valid explanation".
2. Identity card
[3] The expert who analyzed the identity card, an analyst with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, though he admitted that he had no specimen for comparison, concluded that the card in question [TRANSLATION] "is very likely a forgery". Observation under a microscope disclosed the following information:
[TRANSLATION]
We observed the poor printing quality of Exhibit E-00096, noted the ink spots in the coat of arms on the cover and over-printing (printing over areas already printed on); the document was printed by a silk-screen process (the process generally used for small print runs). Documents like the identity card for a citizen of Zaire must be printed in several thousand copies in order to meet demand and the printing process used here is not suitable for such production.
Further, we noted that the wet seal (partly on the photo and partly on the backing) was affixed in such a way that we could not determine its quality: everything was blurred and indistinct, which is generally the case with forgeries.
[4] Counsel for the plaintiff, for her part, after contacting her clients, wrote the Refugee Division that her client [TRANSLATION] "said she was very surprised at the said results" as she obtained the card in 1987 in the Limeti zone. Counsel submitted additional arguments in the following two paragraphs:
[TRANSLATION]
Ms. Mwadi told us that the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) is not a sufficiently well-developed country to use the very sophisticated techniques such as Canada, for example, would use. She indicated that at one point Zaire was no longer issuing new identity cards. There were cards on which the name had been erased and another written in, or even cards which had been scratched out. Even the cards of deceased persons were used, changing the names and giving the card to someone else.
For our part, we would like you to consider that without a specimen for comparison it is quite difficult to determine whether the printing process is a widespread phenomenon or unique to our client's card. She repeated that she was acting in good faith and swore before you that she obtained this card through the authorities in her country, and so by completely legal means.
[5] The Refugee Division did not accept counsel's allegations and confined its attention to the aforesaid expert opinion.
3. Analysis
[6] It is well settled that courts which have to review a decision should not judge the evidence presented before an administrative tribunal in due form.[1] In Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Montréal,[2] L'Heureux-Dubé J. said for the Court that "Courts must not revisit the facts or weigh the evidence".
[7] Faced with two contradictory pieces of evidence, the expert testimony and the allegations of counsel for the plaintiff, the Refugee Division preferred to rely on the findings of the expert assessment, and was entitled to do so. In my opinion, this conclusion is reasonable and is not subject to this Court's power of review.
4. Disposition
[8] Accordingly, it follows that this application cannot be allowed. Both counsel agree that the case raised no question of general importance for certification.
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-3868-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: DIANE MWADI ET AL. v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 22, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: DUBÉ J.
DATED: May 29, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Claude Whalen FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Steve Bell FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Claude Whalen FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
[1] Sidhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1401 (August 22, 2000), F.C.T.D.
Email this Content