Date: 20081113
Docket: IMM-2148-08
Citation: 2008 FC 1261
Toronto, Ontario, November 13, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
RICHARD
KWIZERA
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
Applicant is an adult male citizen of Burundi. He speaks Kirundi and
claims to becoming more proficient in English but not yet fully proficient. His
PIF says that he speaks French as a second language; his high school diploma is
printed in French. The Applicant left Burundi and having
travelled for a few days through Ethiopia, Italy and the
United States on the same trip; he entered Canada from United
States
and claimed refugee protection. A hearing was held with the aid of a Kirundi/English
interpreter, before a Member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.
In a written decision dated April 14, 2008, the Member rejected the Applicant’s
claim for refugee protection. This application is a judicial review of that
decision.
[2]
For
the reasons that follow, I find that the application is dismissed.
[3]
The
Applicant’s Further Memorandum of Argument does not clearly state the issues in
this case; it sets out several vague and jingoistic paragraphs. However, from
the written material provided by both parties and oral argument of counsel for
the parties, the issues are resolved into three:
- Was the Member’s
negative credibility finding reasonable?
- Did the Member
ignore relevant evidence including relevant documentary evidence?
- Was the Applicant
denied procedural fairness in respect of errors alleged to have been made
by the interpreter?
[4]
The
Applicant’s history as recounted by him, in brief, is that he is an ethnic
Tutsi who, with his family, lived in Burundi during the ethnic
troubles there. He alleges that several members of his family were killed and
that he was tortured by Hutus to the extent that he required hospitalization.
He claims to have identified his assailants and reported them to the police.
He claims to have returned to school at which time he encountered one of the
Hutus who had killed a family member. Without recounting all of the alleged
events, more violence and threats are said to have followed. Ultimately, some
of the Hutus were arrested and imprisoned. The Applicant continued his
education in Burundi including
registering in university courses. It appears that some of the imprisoned
Hutus were released and are alleged to have sought out the Applicant and family
members with continued violence and threats. The Applicant was a member of an
international AIDS organization and arranged a United States visa to
attend a conference there which he did. The applicant then came from the
United States to Canada where he made his refugee claim.
[5]
The
Member considered the Applicant’s evidence. He found it to be inconsistent and
that it contained unexplained discrepancies. The Member was not persuaded with
explanations given. As to the documents presented in support of the
Applicant’s claim, the Member placed little weight on alleged death
certificates produced by the Applicant. Little weight was placed on a
declaration made by the Applicant’s cousin.
[6]
In
conclusion, the Member found that there was insufficient credible evidence in
support of the Applicant’s claim.
[7]
This
court will not reweigh evidence and will not interfere with findings made by a
Member so long as they are reasonable within the criteria established by the
Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1
S.C.R. 190. Where it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court
that evidence or documents that might have had an impact on the result
otherwise arrived at by the Member, the Court is likely to intervene. However
a Member is not required to set out in the Reasons given, mention of every
document or every piece of evidence in the Record.
[8]
In
the present case, I am not persuaded that the Member overlooked or failed to
give proper consideration to any relevant evidence or relevant document. The
findings made by the Member are reasonable and ought not to be disturbed.
[9]
As
to procedural fairness and, in particular, the quality of the translation
offered at the hearing. I remain puzzled as to why the hearing was not
conducted in French.
[10]
The
French language is one of Canada’s official languages and there are
adequate facilities for holding these hearings in French. The Applicant’s
lawyer says that because he speaks English, not French, that the hearing was
conducted in English. It is the needs of the party, not the lawyer that should
prevail. There are many French speaking lawyers in Canada capable of
handling those matters.
[11]
It
is to be noted that no issue was made at the time of the hearing as to the
quality of the translation. It is only in filing this application is the
translation issued raised in the Applicant’s affidavit where he states that his
English has improved to the extent that he can now detect errors. The
Applicant has filed a transcript in English of the testimony given at the
hearing and an affidavit of Henry Boyi who claims to be fluent in Kirundi and
English. This affidavit filed by the Applicant, in fact attests that the
translator from English to Kirundi was perfectly and clearly done and that the
translation from Kirundi to English was good enough to convey the message. A few
errors and misstatements were noted but none sufficiently material so as to
affect the Applicant’s story or the Member’s decision. As stated by Snider J.
in Rafipoor v. Canada (MCI), 2007 FC 615 at paragraph 11, a translation
does not have to be perfect. I am satisfied that no material errors were made
in the translation at issue.
[12]
The
application will be dismissed. The matters are issue are fact specific, no
question needs to be certified. There is no special reason to award costs.
JUDGMENT
For the
Reasons given:
THE COURT
ADJUDGES that:
- The application is
dismissed;
- No question is to
be certified;
- No costs are
awarded.
"Roger
T. Hughes"
Email this Content