Date: 20070112
Docket: IMM-3163-06
Citation: 2007 FC 18
Ottawa, Ontario, January 12, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
LOUAY
BEN MESSAOUD
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
[1]
A
clerical error does not vitiate uncontested credibility findings.
JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
[2]
In
its reason for decision, the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and
Refugee Board (Commission) identified the applicant as Abderrahmane Messaoud
instead of Louay Ben Messaoud.
[3]
It
is obvious, however, when comparing the reasons for decision of the Commission
and the personal information form (PIF) filed by Louay Ben Messaoud in support
of his claim for refugee status, that the decision of the Commission pertains
to the refugee claim filed by Louay Ben Messaoud. The decision of the
Commission deals with the same allegations on which Louay Ben Messaoud based
his refugee claim.
[4]
Moreover,
the Commission states in its reasons for decision that the claimant
successfully established his identity by his testimony and by the supporting
documents which he submitted, including his national identity card, all of
which attest to the claimant being Louay Ben Messaoud.
[5]
Thus,
while the Commission may have identified the claimant as Abderrahmane Messaoud,
it is clear that its decision clearly pertains to the claim filed by Louay Ben
Messaoud.
[6]
Nevertheless,
the applicant maintains that the Commission committed a reviewable error by
incorrectly referring to Abderrahmane Messaoud in its reasons for decision.
[7]
The
applicant says that this error is sufficient in and of itself to vitiate the
Commission’s entire decision, despite the fact that it found the claim of Louay
Ben Messaoud to be not credible, which finding is not challenged by the
applicant.
[8]
Credibility
findings are evaluated on a standard of patent unreasonableness (Aguebor v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 732 (QL);
Pissareva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 2001 (QL); Umba v. Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 25, [2004] F.C.J. No. 17 (QL))
[9]
While
the Commission did refer to the name Abderrahmane Messaoud, it is clear that it
accepted that the claimant established his identity as Louay Ben Messaoud. It
is also clear that the Commission considered the allegations on which the claim
of Louay Ben Messaoud was founded.
CONCLUSION
[10]
The
Court is satisfied that on a patent unreasonableness standard, the Commission’s
decision with respect to credibility is upheld.
[11]
Accordingly,
there is no reason why the Commission’s decision should be set aside.
[12]
Therefore,
this application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT ORDERS that
1.
The application for judicial
review be dismissed;
2.
No serious question
of general importance be certified.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Email this Content