Date: 20091029
Docket: IMM-1974-09
Citation: 2009 FC 1106
Montréal, Québec, October 29, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
MESNIE BOSSE
JAMALL JACQUET
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application
for judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), of a decision by the Refugee
Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) dated March
30, 2009, determining that the applicants, Mesnie Bosse and Jamall Jacquet, are
neither Convention refugees under section 96 of the Act nor persons in need of
protection within the meaning of section 97.
[2]
The applicant,
Mesnie Bosse, is a Haitian citizen. She left her country in April 2001 for the United States, where her claim for asylum
was refused. The applicant’s son, Jamall Jacquet, was born in the United States on November 1, 2006. The
applicant arrived in Canada with her son in 2007 and
claimed refugee protection.
[3]
The Board
determined that the determinative issue was that of credibility. In fact,
according to the Board, the applicant did not discharge her burden of
establishing that there was a serious possibility of persecution or a probable
risk to life facing the applicants in the event that they would have to return
to their respective countries.
[4]
After
analyzing the documentary evidence, the Board was not satisfied that the
applicant would be at greater risk than other persons returning from a stay
abroad.
[5]
Furthermore,
she failed to prove, in a probative manner, that the Mouvement des jeunes
progressistes des débats (MJPD) exists in Haiti. The MJPD was the basis for the
applicant’s alleged fear.
[6]
Since Dunsmuir
v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R.
190 and Uppal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 445, [2009] F.C.J.
No. 557 (QL), the standard of reasonableness applies in matters of credibility.
[7]
The Court
must verify that the decision is intelligible, transparent and defensible in
respect of the facts and law (Dunsmuir, at paragraph 47).
[8]
In this case,
the applicant criticizes the panel for not having analyzed, considered or
mentioned document 14.1 from the March 14, 2008 version of the National Documentation
Package on Haiti (Exit/Entry and Freedom of Movement).
[9]
Yet it is
clear from the evidence that the panel not only considered the document but
asked the applicant precise questions specifically about the risks facing
people returning from a long stay abroad.
[10]
The
panel’s finding that the risk faced by the applicant if she were to return to
Haiti would be a generalized, rather than a personalized risk, falls within the
range of possible, acceptable outcomes.
[11]
The elements
on which the Board based its negative credibility finding are clear, precise
and supported by the evidence.
[12]
The
Court’s intervention is not warranted.
[13]
No
question was proposed for certification and none arises from this case.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the application for judicial
review be dismissed. No question is certified.
“Michel
Beaudry”
Certified true
translation
Sebastian Desbarats,
Translator
Email this Content