Matanga v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1410

                                                                                                                                             Date: 20031204

                                                                                                                                 Docket: IMM-6271-02

                                                                                                                                 Citation: 2003 FC 1410

Between:

                                                          Alice Baygwaka MATANGA

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                              -and-

                                                  THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                                                              AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                                            REASONS FOR ORDER

PINARD J.:

[1]         This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB) dated November 18, 2002, that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of sections 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act).

[2]         The applicant, Alice Baygwaka Matanga (the applicant), is 72 years old and she is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The applicant alleges that she has a well-founded fear of persecution because of her perceived political opinions and her membership in a particular social group, the family. She also alleges that she is a person in need of protection should she return to the DRC.   

[3]         The IRB found that the applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection because her claim was not credible. The IRB based its finding primarily on the absence of acceptable proof of the applicant's identity and on the improbability of her fear of persecution.

[4]         The applicant submits that the panel erred in refusing to give probative value to the church card offered as identification. It is essential that claimants be able to produce acceptable identification documents in order to establish their identity and their route to Canada (Elazi v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 212 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)). Pursuant to section 106 of the Act, the panel can consider the lack of acceptable proof of identity in assessing the applicant's credibility and it does not appear to me that the panel made a patently unreasonable error in adhering to the directives of the Act. In some cases, the panel may excuse the loss or lack of acceptable identity documentation if the claimant provides a serious explanation. In this case, the applicant did not offer any such explanation to account for the loss of her false French passport and the lack of official identity documents.

[5]         According to the applicant, the panel should have given more consideration to the assessment of her subjective and objective fear of persecution. In this case, the applicant's credibility had already been called into question because of the lack of acceptable proof of her identity and because of certain implausibilities in her story.

[6]         It is well established, in matters involving credibility and the appreciation of the facts, that this Court cannot substitute itself for the administrative tribunal when, as in this case, the party making the application fails to prove that the impugned decision is based on an erroneous finding of fact that the panel made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). The panel's perception that the party making the application is not credible could very well substantiate the finding that there is no credible element that justifies the refugee claim (see Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, at page 244 (C.A.)).

[7]         Since I am not persuaded, after reviewing the record, that the IRB, a specialized tribunal, could not reasonably find as it did (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)), the application for judicial review is dismissed.

           "Yvon Pinard"          

             JUDGE                 

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

December 4, 2003

Certified true translation

Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB

                                   FEDERAL COURT

                               SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                IMM-6271-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:                       Alice Baygwaka MATANGA v. THE MINISTER

OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:              Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:              November 13, 2003

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                 The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard

DATED:                          December 4, 2003

APPEARANCES:

Dany Brouillette                      FOR THE APPLICANT

Andrea Shahin                         FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Dany Brouillette                      FOR THE APPLICANT

Montréal, Québec

Morris Rosenberg                      FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario