Docket: IMM-2654-15
Citation:
2015 FC 1313
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED
TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec, November 25, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
PATRICK MASAKID
BIKOKO
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Introduction
[1]
This is an application for judicial review
pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division
[RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, dated May 13, 2015,
rejecting the applicant’s claim for protection as a refugee or a person in need
of protection within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.
II.
Facts
[2]
The applicant, Patrick Masakid Bikoko, is
44 years old and a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo [DRC].
[3]
He alleges in his Basis of Claim [BOC] form that
he had to leave the DRC because he was housing individuals (his brother and his
nephew) who had participated in a demonstration on December 31, 2013, that
was heavily suppressed by Congolese authorities. The Congolese army had
apparently shot at the demonstrators, and the applicant’s brother had died
after being hit by bullets. After the demonstration, the applicant’s nephew continued
to live with the applicant until February 2014.
[4]
During the night of March 1, 2014,
Congolese soldiers looking for people who had attended the December 2013 demonstration
came to the applicant’s home. The applicant allegedly told them that his nephew
was no longer living with him. On April 19, 2014, the applicant left the
DRC to travel in the United States for pleasure. While he was in the United
States, he learned in a telephone call with his wife that she had been beaten
by Congolese soldiers and that he himself had been accused of being a terrorist
as a result of his having housed his nephew. Following this conversation, the
applicant decided that it would be best to seek refugee protection in Canada.
[5]
On May 20, 2014, the applicant arrived in
Canada, and on July 10, 2014, he filed his refugee protection claim. In a
decision dated September 22, 2014, the Refugee Protection Division [RPD]
rejected the applicant’s refugee protection claim on the basis that his story
was not credible and contradicted the objective documentary evidence, and that,
moreover, the applicant had not established, through documentation, that there
was a family relationship between him and his alleged brother and nephew.
[6]
In a decision dated May 13, 2013, the RAD
rejected the applicant’s appeal. The RAD agreed with the RPD’s findings
concerning the applicant’s lack of credibility and found that the RPD was
entitled to draw a negative inference from the fact that the applicant had not
sought refugee protection in the United States.
III.
Analysis
[7]
First, the Court notes that the RAD acted within
its jurisdiction and applied the correct standard of review to the RPD’s
decision by following the guidance of this Court in Huruglica v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 799.
[8]
The only determinative issue, therefore, is
whether the RAD’s findings are reasonable. The applicable standard of review
for the RAD’s credibility findings is that of reasonableness (Djossou v
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1080 at para 33;
Bui v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC
1145 at para 17).
[9]
Before this Court, the applicant’s main argument
was that the RAD’s findings regarding his lack of credibility are unreasonable
and unsupported by the evidence, and therefore constitute an error in law. Among
other things, the applicant submitted to this Court explanations as to why it
was impossible for him to present documentary evidence proving that his brother
and nephew had lived with him, and explanations for the contradictions between
his testimony and the documentary evidence. Finally, the applicant concluded
that even if there were contradictions, they did not concern the essential elements
of his account.
[10]
In the matter at bar, the Court is of the
opinion that the RAD’s decision to dismiss the appeal of the RPD’s decision is
reasonable and that the RAD’s findings are supported by the evidence. It
appears from the RAD’s findings that there are significant contradictions
between the applicant’s story and the documentary evidence, which was found to
be credible by the RAD. Moreover, the applicant was unable to support essential
elements of his story through objective evidence. It is important to remember
that unless the adverse credibility findings were made in a perverse and
capricious manner, the Court’s intervention is not warranted (Rezmuves v
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 973; Evans
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 444). The
applicant may disagree with the RPD’s and the RAD’s assessments of the
evidence, but it is not the role of this Court to reweigh the evidence and to
substitute its conclusions for those of the RAD (Karakaya v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 777 at para 33). The RAD’s
decision, the parties’ submissions and the evidence on the record reveal that
they are many problems with respect to the credibility of the applicant’s
story. For these reasons, the Court finds that this application for judicial
review should be dismissed.
IV.
Conclusion
[11]
The Court concludes that the RAD’s decision is
reasonable. Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Email this Content