Date:
20130208
Docket:
IMM-5378-12
Citation:
2013 FC 140
[UNREVISED
ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, February 8, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Simon Noël
BETWEEN:
|
|
ERIKA ALEJANDRA
VAZQUEZ BIZARRO
JESSICA PAULINA
SANCHEZ VAZQUEZ
JOSE ESAU SANCHEZ
VAZQUEZ
JOSUE HABACUC
SANCHEZ VAZQUEZ
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection
Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated May 9, 2012, pursuant
to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC
2001, c 27 (IRPA). The RPD found that the applicants are not Convention
refugees under section 96 of the IRPA or persons in need of protection
under section 97 of the IRPA.
I. Facts
[2]
Erika
Alejandra Vasquez Bizarro and her three children are citizens of Mexico. The
principal applicant was apparently targeted by individuals who tried to get her
to pay the money that her deceased husband owed them. She was allegedly also
the victim of a dishonest lawyer, Vicente Garcia Gomez. She was apparently
threatened and robbed. All of the incidents apparently took place between
January 16, 2002, and August 26, 2008, the date on which the applicants arrived
in Canada.
II. Decision
under review
[3]
The
RPD found that the principal applicant is not credible because of numerous
contradictions in her testimony and significant omissions that touch on
elements at the heart of her claim. It therefore rejected the principal
applicant’s claim and her children’s claims, which were based on hers.
[4]
First,
the principal applicant, during her testimony before the RPD, was unable to provide
a date for most of the alleged incidents and claimed that she did not remember when
specifically they had occurred.
[5]
Second,
during her testimony at the hearing, she explained why she fears the lawyer
named Vicente Garcia Gomez. She talked about a particular incident that was not
mentioned in her written account. According to her testimony, the lawyer went to
her children’s school and tried to take them with him. The applicant stated
that she had mentioned that in her testimony because she had just remembered
the incident. The explanation was deemed unsatisfactory by the RPD.
[6]
Third,
the applicant also mentioned during her testimony that the lawyer named Vicente Garcia
Gomez approached her and intimidated her when she was in Guadalajara. That
incident was not included in her written account. The RPD rejected the
applicant’s explanation that she thought that the incident had been mentioned.
[7]
Finally,
regarding the robbery that apparently took place in January 2008, which,
according to the principal applicant, is connected to the threats that were
uttered against her, she states that she did not provide any name to the police
officers who noted the damage.
III. Position
of the applicants
[8]
The
applicants allege that the RPD’s decision regarding the principal applicant’s
credibility is unreasonable given that the problems indicated by the panel do
not concern facts at the heart of her claim.
[9]
The
principal applicant is of the opinion that the lawyer named Vicente Garcia
Gomez’s attempt to take her children at school should not have been considered
an important element of her refugee claim.
[10]
Second,
the principal applicant alleges that the negative finding with respect to her
credibility owing to the fact that she did not mention in her account that the
lawyer intimidated her when she was in Guadalajara is unreasonable because it
was an omission concerning an incidental element of her claim.
[11]
No
argument was submitted regarding the principal applicant’s vagueness with
respect to the dates of the incidents.
IV. Position
of the respondent
[12]
The
respondent suggests that the RPD’s findings regarding the applicant are
reasonable because it is well established that it may find that the principal
applicant is not credible because of significant omissions in her written
account and significant vagueness in her testimony. Furthermore, it is up to
the RPD to determine whether the explanations provided by the principal
applicant regarding the significant omissions in her account are reasonable.
V. Issue
[13]
Did
the RPD err by finding that the principal applicant is not credible?
VI. Standard
of review
[14]
The
reasonableness standard applies to the RPD’s decision with respect to the
credibility of the principal applicant because it is a question of fact (Aguebor v Canada (Minister of Employment
and Immigration), 160 NR 315 at paragraph 4, 1993 CarswellNat
303 (FCA)).
VII. Analysis
[15]
The
negative inferences drawn by the RPD regarding the principal applicant’s
credibility are reasonable for the following reasons.
[16]
Under
the circumstances, it was reasonable for the RPD to find that the principal
applicant’s failure to mention the lawyer Vicente Garcia Gomez’s attempt to
kidnap her children in her written account negatively affected her credibility.
In fact, such an important fact for a mother of three children who cares about
her children’s safety should certainly have been mentioned in her written
account.
[17]
Furthermore,
given that the applicant testified that she fears the lawyer named Vicente Garcia
Gomez, it was reasonable for the RPD to find that the fact that she did not
mention in her written account an episode during which he apparently threatened
her negatively affected her credibility.
[18]
This
Court has repeatedly recognized that the RPD can reasonably base its negative
findings with respect to credibility on the omissions and contradictions that it identifies with respect to
important facts alleged in the Personal Information Form and the oral testimony
(see Basseghi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1994]
FCJ 1867 at paragraph 33, 52 ACWS (3d) 165; Feradov v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 101 at paragraph 18, 154 ACWS (3d)
1183). Furthermore, it is open to the RPD to reject an explanation provided with
respect to such omissions when they are unreasonable (Sinan v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 87 at paragraph 10). Thus, the
RPD’s findings regarding the omissions in the applicant’s written account as
well as its rejection of the applicant’s explanations with respect to those
omissions are well-founded.
[19]
Finally,
regarding the vagueness of the dates on which the incidents purportedly
occurred, this Court will not interfere with the RPD’s findings because they
are reasonable. In fact, a person who claims to fear persecution should be able
to provide at least some dates for the important facts. Also, a reading of the RPD
hearing transcripts shows a lot of vagueness in the principal applicant’s
testimony.
[20]
Although
the principal applicant’s account and testimony show that other incidents
occurred, it was reasonable in the circumstances to find that the omissions and
vagueness with respect to the incidents were determinative and justified the
rejection of the refugee claim.
[21]
The
parties were invited to submit a question for certification, but none was
submitted.
JUDGMENT
THE
COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this
application for judicial review is dismissed and no question will be certified.
“Simon Noël”
Certified
true translation
Janine
Anderson, Translator
Email this Content