IMM-936-96
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 27th DAY OF
MARCH 1997
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE
YVON PINARD
BETWEEN:
PATRICE
BEGNE,
Applicant,
-
and -
MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
O
R D E R
The application
for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division dated February 20,
1996, holding that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
Judge
Certified true translation
C. Delon, LL.L.
IMM-936-96
BETWEEN:
PATRICE
BEGNE,
Applicant,
-
and -
MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS
FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
This is an application for
judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Refugee
Division) dated February 20, 1996, determining that the applicant is not a
Convention refugee.
It appears that the Board's
decision is based quite simply on the fact that the applicant's evidence was
not credible:
[translation]
We place only little weight on the exhibits filed in
respect of the alleged incidents, most of them being photocopies which are not
very convincing and raise many suspicions as to their authenticity.
In addition, we find his testimony not to be trustworthy.
On this point, we base our decision on the Kamga incident. In our view, for
two students with the same patronymic to have died in the same place in the
same way falls into the realm of science fiction.
At the very most, we might admit that such a
coincidence could occur if the claimant and the exhibits were credible.
With
respect to credibility and assessment of the facts, it is not for me to
substitute my discretion for that of the Board where, as in this case, the
applicant has failed to establish that the Board 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. The question is not whether I would
have exercised my discretion differently, but whether the Board ignored the
evidence before it or acted perversely or capriciously. Having regard to all
of the evidence, I cannot conclude that the assessment of the facts and of
credibility made by the specialized tribunal in question was patently unreasonable.
Accordingly,
the application must be dismissed.
Moreover,
having regard to the specific facts of this case and the reasons of the Board,
I cannot accept the suggestion that the question of the probative value of a
foreign judgment could be a matter for certification in this case under
subsection 18(1) of the Federal Court Immigration Rules, 1993.
O T T A
W A
March
27, 1997
Judge
Certified
true translation
C.
Delon, LL.L.
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL
DIVISION
NAMES
OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT
FILE NO: IMM-936-96
STYLE OF CAUSE:PATRICE BEGNE v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE
OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF
HEARING: MARCH 11, 1997
REASONS
FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: MARCH
27, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Steward
Istvanffy FOR
THE APPLICANT
Marie
Nicole Moreau FOR THE
RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Steward
Istvanffy FOR
THE APPLICANT
Montréal,
Quebec
George
Thomson FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content