Date: 20050824
Docket: IMM-8921-04
Citation: 2005 FC 1158
Toronto, Ontario, August 24, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN
BETWEEN:
ZINAIDA YANEKINA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") dated September 23, 2004 in which the applicant was found not to be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection because she lacked credibility.
FACTS
[2] The applicant is a 68 year-old citizen of Belarus who fears persecution by the authorities on the basis of her political involvement with the Belarus National Front (BNF), a party that opposes the current government in Belarus. The applicant states she became a member of the BNF in February 2000 and was actively involved in distributing party literature and attending rallies and demonstrations.
[3] Three main incidents of persecution were outlined in the applicant's personal information form (PIF). First, the applicant alleged that she was arrested in March 2000 while attending a BNF rally and was pushed, humiliated and verbally abused by the authorities. Second, she states that in June 2001 she was arrested by the police because she had been caught distributing BNF newspapers outside the police station; the police hit her on the back with a stick and she received medical attention for two broken ribs. The applicant claims that she reported the incident to the local prosecutor's office, but they did not commence an investigation. Third, the applicant states that following a routine party meeting in January 2002, she was attacked near her home and left unconscious. She spent two weeks in hospital as a result of her injuries and reported the beating to the police, but they did not follow-up on the report.
[4] On June 4, 2002, the applicant received a summons that she was being charged with writing and distributing materials for the purpose of overthrowing the government. The applicant states that she went into hiding the following day and departed for Canada on June 12, 2002. She made a claim for refugee status on July 18, 2002.
THE DECISION
[5] The Board rejected the applicant's claim for refugee protection due to credibility concerns. It found that the applicant had embellished her political profile with the BNF and that she had fabricated the incidents of persecution outlined in her PIF. The Board relied upon a number of findings to support its conclusion, including:
(i) the applicant was not actively involved in recruiting or disseminating information for the BNF. Her testimony revealed that, at most, she discussed BNF activities with neighbours and friends in an "ad hoc" fashion;
(ii) the invitations to BNF functions produced by the applicant did not demonstrate that she had a high profile within the party. Only one invitation was addressed personally to the applicant, and it was an invitation to attend a function for someone who, based on the documentary evidence, was not directly tied to the BNF party;
(iii) the applicant provided inconsistent dates for her first alleged incident of persecution. In her PIF she stated that she was arrested at a rally held on March 15, 2000, whereas she testified that the rally took place on March 25, 2000;
(iv) the circumstances surrounding the applicant's second alleged incident of persecution were implausible and inconsistent. It was not realistic that the applicant would have been arrested, taken to the police station, questioned, beaten, fined and released within 30 minutes, as recounted by the applicant. Also, the applicant's description of her medical treatment differed in her PIF and testimony. The Board also found it implausible that the applicant, who was 64 years old at the time of her, received only pain medication for her broken ribs;
(v) the Board drew a negative inference from the lack of hospital records;
(vi) it was not plausible that the applicant would choose to distribute BNF materials directly across from the police station given the serious consequences that she could suffer; and
(vii) the applicant's testimony regarding her third alleged incident was suspect. At first she provided very detailed evidence as to who was in attendance at the "closed-door" party meeting, but when questioned further on this point, her testimony became vague and she stated that there may have been persons at the meeting whom she did not know.
ISSUE
[6] Did the Board err in its credibility assessment of the applicant?
ANALYSIS
[7] Credibility findings, including those related to the plausibility of testimony, are entitled to considerable deference by the Court and must not be interfered with unless they are patently unreasonable. Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1194; Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.).
[8] The applicant raised six areas where the Board allegedly erred in drawing adverse inferences. The Court has examined each of these areas, and finds that the conclusions of the Board were reasonably open to the Board. While the applicant ably argued for a different perspective or interpretation with respect to these matters, the Court is satisfied that the conclusion of the Board was reasonably open to it on the evidence. The applicant did not identify any patently unreasonable findings of fact upon which the Board relied to conclude that the applicant was not credible.
[9] The Board reasonably relied upon the following for finding that the applicant was not credible:
1. an inconsistency about the date of the alleged rally in March, 2000;
2. the implausibility that the applicant could be arrested, taken to the police station, questioned, beaten, fined and released all within 30 minutes. The applicant states that she received two broken ribs from the beating;
3. an inconsistency in her evidence with respect to the medical attention which she received at the hospital for these allegedly two broken ribs; and
4. the absence of medical records corroborating this injury, and a subsequent injury requiring two weeks in hospital. The applicant stated that the hospital refused to provide to her daughter with the medical records. The Board did not accept this explanation for the absence of a medical record.
[10] For these reasons, this application for judicial review must be dismissed.
[11] Both parties advised the Court that this case does not raise any question of serious general importance which should be certified for an appeal. The Court agrees so that no question will be certified.
[12] Accordingly, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
This application for judicial review of the Board's decision dated September 23, 2004 is dismissed.
"Michael A. Kelen"
Email this Content