Date: 20000225
Docket: IMM-1699-99
Between:
Abdelkrim ZOUAOUI
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J. :
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated February 25, 1999, by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, which determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act.
[2] As the following excerpts from the decision indicate, the panel simply did not believe the applicant:
[translation]
| After carefully considering all the evidence in light of the definition, we have concluded that the applicant is not credible, as his testimony regarding the essential elements of his claim seems implausible. When we confronted the claimant, the explanations he provided were unsatisfactory for the following reasons: |
| Recognition of refugee status requires that a claimant establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Abdelkrim Zouaoui has not discharged this burden. The story he is attempting to present is nothing more than a fabrication to permit him to stay in Canada. He is not credible. After considering all the evidence, both documentary and oral, the panel is unable to conclude that the claimant would be persecuted if he returned to his country of origin, as outlined in Adjei.7 |
| 7 Adjei v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2 F.C. 680 (C.A.). |
[3] After reviewing the evidence, I am not satisfied that the panel based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act). I am also not satisfied that the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, could not reasonably have been drawn (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315).
[4] The applicant also complains of a certain amount of hostility between his former counsel and one of the panel members, when the issue of his claim as a refugee "sur place" was discussed at the pre-hearing conference. Counsel for the applicant no longer relies on this discussion to support her written submission that the panel had jurisdiction to determine, without a hearing, that her client was a refugee "sur place" (this is understandable, given the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Lawal v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1991] 2 F.C. 404). Instead, she submits that this discussion gives rise to an appearance of bias. None of the evidence, however, persuades me that "an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically--and having thought the matter through--"would conclude that the panel was biased (see [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369">Committee for Justice v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, at page 394).
[5] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 25, 2000
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan
Date: 20000225
Docket: IMM-1699-99
Ottawa, Ontario, the 25th day of February 2000
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
Abdelkrim ZOUAOUI
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision dated February 25, 1999, by the
Convention Refugee Determination Division, which determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
YVON PINARD JUDGE
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT FILE NO.: IMM-1699-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ABDELKRIM ZOUAOUI v. MCI |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: January 26, 2000 |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
| Stéphanie Valois FOR THE APPLICANT |
| Michel Pépin FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| Stéphanie Valois FOR THE APPLICANT |
Montréal, Quebec
| Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content