[1] The applicant, an Angolan citizen, claims a well-founded fear of persecution based on political opinion as a result of his involvement with the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), a rebel group engaged in civil strife with the Angolan government. The refugee claims hearing took place on February 20, 2001 before the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (CRDD) and by decision dated September 26, 2001 the CRDD found the applicant to be excluded from the Convention refugee definition pursuant to Article 1(F)(a) of the Convention. The CRDD additionally found that had the applicant not been excluded, it would have found that there was insufficient credible or trustworthy evidence on which to find that the applicant has a reasonable chance or serious possibility of being persecuted for a Convention refugee ground if returned to Angola.
[2] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the CRDD on a single ground. He submits that it is inherently contradictory for the CRDD to believe the applicant and find him to be excluded while on the same evidence find insufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to make a positive finding of inclusion. In short, it is submitted that if the CRDD found that the applicant was not credible, it could not then believe him for the purposes of exclusion.
[3] Despite the articulate submissions of Mr. McDowell, I am not persuaded that the CRDD erred.
[4] There was ample evidence before the CRDD, in the applicant's narrative and his oral evidence, to support its finding of exclusion. The panel found that the applicant was a soldier with UNITA; he was aware that it was a criminal organization and he had full knowledge of UNITA's international crimes. Specifically, the applicant knew that UNITA killed his father and others in his village; he heard stories of persons being raped and killed; he heard UNITA soldiers speak openly about killings; he agreed with the information put forth by the refugee claims officer that UNITA was responsible for attacks on villages and towns, ambushes on major roads and selective killings and kidnappings designed to intimidate the public and dissuade co-operation with government. The applicant made no attempt to disassociate himself from UNITA despite his knowledge of its international abuses.
[5] In determining the applicant's claim for refugee status, the CRDD examined the evidence in the context of the applicant's fear of persecution. In so doing, it identified 5 aspects of the applicant's evidence that it did not find credible and 3 aspects that it found implausible. The CRDD did not reject the applicant's evidence in its totality; it rejected portions or aspects of it. It identified the problematic areas of the evidence. The identified areas did not relate to the findings upon which the exclusion was based. In the final analysis, the panel determined that there was insufficient credible or trustworthy evidence on which to find a fear of persecution. That finding was not unreasonable nor was it inconsistent with the finding on exclusion.
[6] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
__________________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
August 16, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-4953-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: SEBASTIAO MALDROGAR DE QUEIROS MARIO
v. MCI
DATE OF HEARING: August 14, 2002
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
DATED: August 16, 2002
APPEARANCES BY: Mr Roderick H. McDowell Barrister & Solicitor
Hagan & McDowell
Fort Erie, Ontario.
For the Applicant
Ms. Alexis Singer
Department of Justice
Toronto, Ontario
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr Roderick H. McDowell Barrister & Solicitor
Hagan & McDowell Fort Erie, Ontario.
For the Applicant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
Toronto, Ontario
For the Respondent
Email this Content