Docket: IMM-4535-96
BETWEEN:
MAHUTA MESA PATRICIA
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision rendered on November 7, 1996 by the Refugee Division that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.
[2] The tribunal held that the applicant was not credible. It wrote the following:
| |
Having analyzed the record as a whole and heard the testimony of the claimant, the tribunal concludes that she is not credible and presents its reasons hereunder. |
|
| |
The claimant"s testimony at the hearing was vague, imprecise and hesitant on some essential points in her claim. |
|
Page: 2
[3] In its reasons, the tribunal raised five examples of vague, imprecise and improbable testimony.
[4] The tribunal asked a number of questions designed to allow the applicant to provide the particulars and details they were seeking to find in her testimony.
[5] The tribunal clearly gave some thought to the applicant"s credibility. It considered the oral and documentary evidence. The deficiencies it noted bear on facts that are essential to her claim.
[6] As Décary J.A. held in Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):1
| |
There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review. |
|
[7] As MacGuigan J.A. held in Sheik v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):2
| |
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. |
|
[8] The mere fact that the applicant may hold a different opinion about the appropriate conclusions to draw from particular facts or particular evidence submitted to the Refugee Division is not sufficient in itself to warrant the Court"s intervention, since this is not a criterion for intervention.
[9] As Denault J. reiterated in Atta, this Court should not substitute its own opinion for that of the Refugee Division, so long as the evidence was capable of supporting that opinion:
| |
It is settled law that it is not for the Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, to substitute its opinion for that of the Board if the Board found the applicant's testimony not to be credible, as long as the evidence was capable of supporting that opinion. [Atta v. Solicitor General of Canada, IMM-7233-93, December 1, 1994 (F.C.T.D.)] |
|
[10] In the case at bar, although the applicant does not agree with the conclusions that the Refugee Division drew from the evidence and would have preferred an interpretation that is more favourable to her, she has failed to demonstrate that the Refugee Division rendered an unreasonable decision.
[11] Accordingly, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
Montréal, Quebec
October 15, 1997
Certified true translation
Christiane Delon
Federal Court of Canada
Docket: IMM-4535-96
BETWEEN:
MAHUTA MESA PATRICIA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE: MAHUTA MESA PATRICIA |
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: October 14, 1997 |
REASONS AT HEARING BY THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RICHARD
APPEARANCES:
| Eveline Fiset for the applicant |
| Lisa Maziade for the respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Eveline Fiset for the applicant |
Montréal, Quebec
| George Thomson for the respondent |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
__________________
1 (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.).
2 [1990] 3 F.C. 238 at 244 (F.C.A.).
Email this Content