Date: 19980916
Docket: IMM-4262-97
Between:
TATIANA SOVETOVA
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Refugee Division) dated September 15, 1997, in file M97-00833, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee and furthermore, pursuant to subsection 69.1(9.1) of the Immigration Act, that her claim does not have a credible basis.
[2] The panel dismissed the applicant"s claim, finding pursuant to subsection 69.1(9.1) of the Immigration Act that the applicant lacked credibility and moreover that there was no credible basis for her claim.
[3] Counsel for the applicant made representations on the panel"s implausibility findings that led to the claim being dismissed due to the applicant"s lack of credibility.
[4] In light of the panel"s analysis of the evidence, it was not unreasonable under the circumstances for the panel to find contradictions and implausibilities in that evidence that were conclusive of a lack of credibility.
[5] The Refugee Division, which had ample opportunity to hear the witnesses and assess all the evidence, both oral and documentary, made different findings on that evidence from those the applicant reached.
[6] The panel is in a better position than this Court to assess that evidence.
[7] The panel"s findings on the oral as well as the documentary evidence are clearly not unreasonable.
[8] In André Marie Songue v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (IMM-3391-95), Mr. Justice Rouleau said:
| |
After carefully reviewing this case, I am of the view that there is nothing to justify this Court"s intervention, since the Refugee Division"s decision is well founded in fact and in law. |
|
| |
The assessment of credibility found in the Refugee Division"s decision should not be called into question by this Court, since the Refugee Division is the judge of fact and, as such, is responsible for drawing conclusions and inferences from the evidence adduced before it and for determining what weight should be given to that evidence. |
|
[9] As Mr. Justice Décary also noted in Aguebor v. Canada:1
| |
There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review. |
|
[10] In Alza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-3657-94), Mr. Justice MacKay said:
| |
It is settled that the CRDD may reject testimony which is uncontradicted if that evidence does not accord with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole. |
|
| |
This court will not readily interfere with findings of credibility, even those based on implausibilities, except where such findings are unreasonable in that they are not supportable in the evidence. Whether the court would have reached the same findings on the evidence is not an issue where it is not established the findings are unreasonable. |
|
[11] On the issue of the applicant"s credibility in Abdulhakim Ali Sheikh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1990] 3 F.C. 238, at page 244:
| |
The concept of "credible evidence" is not, of course, the same as that of the credibility of the applicant, but it is obvious that where the only evidence before a tribunal linking the applicant to his claim is that of the applicant himself . . . a tribunal"s perception that he is not a credible witness effectively amounts to a finding that there is no credible evidence on which the second-level tribunal could allow his claim. |
|
| |
. . . even without disbelieving every word an applicant has uttered, a first-level panel may reasonably find him so lacking in credibility that it concludes there is no credible evidence relevant to his claim on which a second-level panel could uphold that claim. In other words, a general finding of a lack of credibility on the part of the applicant may conceivably extend to all relevant evidence emanating from his testimony. |
|
[12] For all these reasons, the applicant"s application is dismissed, and no question of general importance will be certified.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 16, 1998
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-4262-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: TATIANA SOVETOVA v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL
DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 25, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER OF BLAIS J.
DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Michel Le Brun FOR THE APPLICANT
Martine Valois FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michel Le Brun FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________
1 (1993), 160 N.R. 360 (F.C.A.).
Email this Content