Date: 20000601
Docket: IMM-3794-99
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, JUNE 1, 2000
Before: J.E. DUBÉ J.
Between:
FREDY DANILO HERRERA RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Defendant.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Judge
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL. B.
Date: 20000601
Docket: IMM-3794-99
Between:
FREDY DANILO HERRERA RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review from a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Refugee Division") on July 6, 1999 that the plaintiff is not a Convention refugee.
[2] The Refugee Division dismissed the plaintiff's claim for a lack of credibility. It mentioned major contradictions between his port of entry fact sheet, his PIF and his testimony before the Refugee Division. Further, the plaintiff indicated in his sheet that he was a [TRANSLATION] "farmer", while at the hearing he said he was a [TRANSLATION] "mercenary". In his fact sheet he was unable to indicate his last employment, his military rank or whether he once belonged to a religious, social, military, political or other group. The plaintiff tried to explain that he could not read and that his fact sheet was completed by a friend at his apartment in Montréal, when it is clear that the sheet was filled in at the border.
[3] In his testimony the plaintiff mentioned that in the course of his duties he supervised trades union members and wrote reports on them. When his statement that he did not know how to read was put to him, he replied that he could not read in French. He did not seem to know anything about the reduction of the armed forces in Guatemala, although the armed forces to which he claimed to have belonged had been reduced by one-third, according to the U.N. Secretary General's report shown to him.
[4] In general, the Refugee Division found that the plaintiff's testimony was [TRANSLATION] "difficult and laborious".
[5] It is well established that the Refugee Division has discretion to assess a claimant's credibility. It is a specialized tribunal which is in a position to determine and monitor the plausibility of a claimant's testimony. In the case at bar, it is quite apparent that the Refugee Division's findings were not unreasonable.
[6] At the judicial review hearing in this Court, counsel for the plaintiff alleged that a document before the Refugee Division, namely the [TRANSLATION] "CIC Border Ports of Entry (Philipsburg)", was in Spanish and not in French or English, thereby contravening s. 14 of the Official Languages Act. That form, undoubtedly available in several languages, was shown to the plaintiff in his mother tongue presumably in order to make his task easier. Section 14 referred to reads as follows:
| 14. English and French are the official languages of the federal courts, and either of those languages may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any federal court. |
[7] This form is available to aliens arriving at a port of entry and does not in any way infringe the aforementioned section. French and English are still the official languages of the Refugee Division and everyone has the right to use one or other of the two languages. In fact, the transcript of testimony and the decision indicate that the entire proceeding was in French. There was an interpreter to assist the plaintiff. The latter was also represented by Michel Le Brun, a highly experienced counsel in immigration matters. No one at the hearing objected to the presence of this Spanish form in the record. This last-minute argument is thus invalid.
[8] In my opinion, there is no serious question of general importance here to be certified pursuant to s. 83(1) of the Immigration Act.
[9] This application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.
Judge
OTTAWA, Ontario
June 1, 2000
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: IMM-3794-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: FREDY DANILO HERRERA RAMIREZ
v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 25, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: DUBÉ J.
DATED: JUNE 1, 2000
APPEARANCES:
MANUEL CENTURION FOR THE APPLICANT
SIMON RUEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MICHEL LE BRUN FOR THE APPLICANT
NORMAND LEMYRE FOR THE RESPONDENT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content