Date: 20070306
Docket: IMM-2538-06
Citation: 2007 FC 266
Montréal, Quebec, the 6th day
of March 2007
Present:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
BETWEEN:
BÉNÉCLERC
FÉLIX
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Delivered
from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on March 6, 2007.)
[1]
This is an
application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection
Division of the IRB dated April 20, 2006, in docket MA5-04725, in which the
panel member, Donal Archambault, dismissed the applicant’s refugee claim
because it had been found not credible.
[2]
The applicant
submitted, first, that the panel member had made a reviewable error in taking
into consideration the two Personal Information Forms (PIFs), even though at
the hearing he had justified the need to submit a new PIF, since the first PIF
had been embellished by his first representative. Although the applicant had
provided an explanation for this, I do not believe that it was inappropriate
for the panel member to question the applicant on the subject of allegations
made in both PIFs in order to gauge his credibility. In any case, the panel
member did not base his decision on the misrepresentations contained in the
first PIF.
[3]
This brings me to the
applicant’s second ground, namely, that the panel member’s general finding of
non-credibility is patently unreasonable because it placed too much emphasis on
peripheral or secondary elements in the applicant’s account of persecution.
This second criticism is equally unjustified, and I accept the respondent’s
arguments in this regard. The panel member was certainly entitled to question the
applicant’s credibility based on the various elements indicated in his
decision. In particular, the contradictions or the inconsistency of the
applicant’s account of his stay of several months in Grande Saline and his
subsequent return to Cabaret amply justify, in my humble opinion, the finding
of non-credibility which, in other respects, does not seem to me to be patently
unreasonable as a whole.
[4]
There remain the
personal reproaches addressed to Mr. Archambault. I do not believe that there
was any breach of the applicant’s right to a fair and impartial hearing. The
applicant was duly represented at the hearing, and his counsel chose not to ask
questions or to ask the applicant for additional clarification following the
responses that he had already given to the panel member. Moreover, the panel
member was allowed to question the applicant energetically in order to, among
other things, clarify the shortcomings in the evidence and to assess his
credibility. The panel member certainly made some unwarranted remarks, and he
demonstrated a certain impatience at the hearing. Nonetheless, having read the
transcripts closely, and having studied the question in depth, in a realistic
and practical manner, I do not believe that the general conduct or the panel
member’s specific remarks raise a reasonable apprehension of bias in a
reasonable and right-minded person. That being said, the panel member perhaps
came very close to exceeding the acceptable limits, but he did not exceed them
in this case.
[5]
In conclusion, the
application for judicial review must be dismissed. There was no question of
general importance raised, either by the parties or in the case.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review be
dismissed.
"Luc
Martineau"
Certified
true translation
Susan
Deichert,
Reviser
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2538-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: BÉNÉCLERC
FÉLIX v. DCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 6, 2007
REASONS FOR ORDER AND
ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH ON: March 6, 2007
APPEARANCES:
|
Emelyne K. Emerimana
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Daniel Latulippe
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Emelyne K. Emerimana
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
John
H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Montréal,
Quebec
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|