Date: 20130221
Docket: IMM-6681-12
Citation: 2013 FC 182
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED
TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec, February 21, 2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
|
|
OTTO
RENÉ SOTOJ DIVAS
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The applicant challenges the determination made against him
on June 15, 2012, by the Refugee Protection Division (SPR) of the of the
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), specifying that the applicant is not a
Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection.
[2]
The applicant is a citizen of Guatemala who stated at his
hearing before the IRB that he fears the Maras group, which he did not mention
in his Personal Information Form (PIF) or in his amended PIF.
[3]
The applicant alleged that he abandoned his principal
residence following a telephone call because of which he alleges that he was forced
to register his principal residence in the name of a stranger.
[4]
The applicant left Guatemala on June 25, 2010, to come
to the United States after crossing Mexico from June 26 to July 9,
2010, without submitting an asylum claim, but he also came to Canada illegally on
July 17, 2010, after crossing the border by a wooded path and he did not
claim refugee status until he arrived at the Canadian border.
[5]
A lack of credibility surrounds the facts of the case. As
soon as he arrived at the point of entry in Canada, the applicant should have told
his entire story in his PIF. In addition, the fact that he did not submit an
asylum claim in the United States, according to the applicant’s initial
statements, undermines his case. Further, the fact that he did not make a
refugee claim at a border post on arriving in Canada, but rather after he had crossed
the border illegally adds to the inherent weaknesses of his application before
this Court.
[6]
The applicant’s conduct undermined his own credibility. Further,
his actions led to a story devoid of inherent logic and even implausible to the
very core of his allegations.
[7]
Biachi v Canada (Minister of the Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 589, reflects the applicant’s situation well.
[8] ... In El Balazi v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2006 FC 38, [2006] F.C.J. No.
80, at paragraph 6, Mr. Justice Yvon Pinard states that even in some
circumstances, the applicant’s conduct may be enough to deny a refugee claim:
The respondent correctly says
that the IRB may take into account a claimant’s conduct when assessing his or
her statements and actions, and that in certain circumstances a claimant’s
conduct may be sufficient, in itself, to dismiss a refugee claim (Huerta v.
Minister of Employment and Immigration (March 17, 1993), A-448-91, Ilie
v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (November 22, 1994),
IMM-462-94 and Riadinskaia v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
(January 12, 2001), IMM-4881-99).
[8]
For all these reasons, the Court dismisses the application
for judicial review.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS that the applicant’s application for judicial review be dismissed with no
question of general importance to certify.
“Michel
M.J. Shore”
Certified true
translation
Catherine Jones,
Translator
Email this Content