IMM-3149-95
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, the 16th day of January 1997.
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR.
JUSTICE PINARD
BETWEEN:
SAMIR
BESSEKRI,
Applicant,
-
and -
EMPLOYMENT
AND IMMIGRATION
COMMISSION
OF CANADA,
Respondent.
O
R D E R
The application for judicial review
of a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division on October 18,
1995 that the applicant is not a Convention refugee as defined by s. 2(1)
of the Immigration Act is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
C. Delon, LL.L.
IMM-3149-95
BETWEEN:
SAMIR
BESSEKRI,
Applicant,
-
and -
EMPLOYMENT
AND IMMIGRATION
COMMISSION
OF CANADA,
Respondent.
REASONS
FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
The application for judicial review
is from a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division on October
18, 1995 that the applicant is not a Convention refugee as defined by
s. 2(1) of the Immigration Act.
The tribunal's decision was first and
foremost based on the applicant's lack of credibility. Alternatively, the
tribunal said the following:
[TRANSLATION]
Even if
we had regarded the claimant as completely credible, we would still not have
granted refugee status because it seems clear to us that a domestic flight
alternative (DFA) existed in Algeria in his case.
The tribunal's conclusion that the
applicant lacked credibility appears to the Court to be based not only on his
actions, including the fact that he did not claim refugee status in France or
the US, but also on inconsistencies between the applicant's personal
information form and his testimony as well as discrepancies in his account.
Accordingly, the Court has not been persuaded that this assessment by the
tribunal lacked an adequate basis. The tribunal certainly could reasonably
conclude as it did, since its view that the applicant was not credible in fact
amounts to a conclusion that no credible evidence existed to justify the claim
for refugee status at issue. On this point we need only recall what was said
by MacGuigan J.A. in Sheikh v. Canada, [1990] 3 F.C. 238, at 244:
The
concept of "credible evidence" is not, of course, the same as that of
the credibility of the applicant, but it is obvious that where the only
evidence before a tribunal linking the applicant to his claim is that of the
applicant himself (in addition, perhaps, to "country reports" from
which nothing about the applicant's claim can be directly deduced), a
tribunal's perception that he is not a credible witness effectively amounts to
a finding that there is no credible evidence on which the second-level tribunal
could allow his claim.
As intervention by this Court is thus
not justified on the tribunal's primary conclusion, the application at bar is
dismissed without any need to consider the alternative conclusion.
There is no basis here for
certification pursuant to s. 18(1) of the Federal Court Immigration Rules,
1993.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario,
January 16, 1997.
Certified true translation
C. Delon, LL.L.
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL
DIVISION
NAMES
OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.:IMM-3149-95
STYLE OF CAUSE:Samir Bessekri v. M.C.I.
PLACE OF HEARING:Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING:January 6, 1997
REASONS FOR ORDER BY:Pinard J.
DATED:January 16, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Denis Girardfor the applicant
Michèle Joubertfor the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Denis Girardfor the applicant
Montréal, Quebec
George Thomsonfor the respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content