Herrera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-336-97

Date: 19980109

Docket: IMM-336-97

BETWEEN:

     OSCAR ARMANDO HERRERA

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

DUBÉ, J.

[1]      The applicant, a citizen of El Salvador, seeks the judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board"), dated December 18, 1996, denying his application for convention refugee status.

[2]      Born in 1974, he became involved in politics in November 1990, along with two cousins, to assist another cousin, Ramon Herrera, in his campaign for mayor as a Convergencia Democratia candidate. They aided in propaganda work, distributed tracks and posted signs. In February 1991, Ramon Herrera lost his election and was assassinated in July 1991. Cousin Vincente was also assassinated on January 6, 1992.

[3]      In February of 1992 the applicant applied for a visa for Belize and left for that country. He lived and worked in Belize for 10 months, returned to El Salvador to visit his sick mother and then lived and worked in Guatemala for a year and 8 months. He then moved to Mexico where he stayed for a month, then moved to the United States where he lived for another month before arriving in Canada on December 29, 1994, when he claimed refugee status because he feared for his life.

[4]      The Board concluded that the applicant did not have a well founded fear of persecution in El Salvador because he lacked credibility on several grounds. Even taking for granted certain of the facts mentioned above, the Board drew several conclusions of implausibility. First, the applicant's lack of political knowledge, more specifically that he did not know the name of the candidate who won the election in which he campaigned. Second, he could not identify the people he feared, other than that they were a group "formed out of hate". Third, that the applicant and his family would be persecuted after having lost the election. Fourth, his motivation for applying for his passport in November, 1990, allegedly based on threats received during the election campaign which took place in December, 1990. Fifth, the Board was curious as to why the applicant took the risk of getting his identity card the day he was leaving his country if he feared for his life. Sixth, the Board found it incredible that the applicant's mother would ask him to return home because she was ill while knowing that her son's life was in danger.

[5]      It is trite law that credibility is a matter of fact and that the Board is the master of that realm. It is not for the judge to impose his own decision in such matters, unless the decision of the Board was made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. As the primary finder of fact, the Board is entitled to decide adversely with respect to a claimant's credibility on the basis of contradictions and inconsistencies in a claimant's story, or on the basis that it is simply implausible.

[6]      Although counsel for the applicant submitted imaginative explanations, garnered from the transcript, for each one of the implausibilities, that resourceful effort cannot succeed. Even if each implausibility outlined by the Board could somehow be redeemed, it was still open to the Board to take a global view of the evidence and to conclude that the applicant was not credible. The Board did provide reasons as to why it did not accept the applicant's version of events after having heard the witness and assessed his behaviour. A detailed analysis of several questions and answers from a transcript may lead to different interpretations from different readers, but in matters of appreciation of facts and credibility it is the interpretation of the trier of facts that must be accepted, unless his findings are unreasonable.

[7]      Consequently, this application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no serious question of general importance to be certified pursuant to section 83 of the Immigration Act.

                             (Sgd.) "J.E. Dubé"

                                 J.F.C.C.

Vancouver, British Columbia

January 9, 1998

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT NO.:              IMM-336-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:          OSCAR ARMANDO HERRERA,

     Applicant

                     - and -

                     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     Respondent.

PLACE OF HEARING:          Vancouver, BC

DATE OF HEARING:          January 8, 1998

REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE COURT BY: DUBÉ, J.

DATED:                  January 9, 1998

APPEARANCES:

     Ms. Fiona Begg              for Applicant

     Ms. Wendy Petersmeyer          for Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

     Ms. Fiona Begg              for Applicant