Gimenez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1114

Date: 20050818

Docket: IMM-8342-04

Citation: 2005 FC 1114

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, this 18^th day of August, 2005

PRESENT:    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY

BETWEEN:

MARIO CLAROS GIMENEZ

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]    Mr. Mario Claros Gimenez claims to have been persecuted in Venezuela on political grounds. He sought refugee protection in Canada, but a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed his claim for a lack of reliable evidence. Mr. Gimenez argues that the Board unfairly discounted his evidence and asks for a new hearing. However, I can find no error on the Board's part and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.

I. Issue

[2]    Mr. Gimenez raised several arguments in his written materials, but one main issue emerged from the hearing before me: Did the Board unfairly discredit the version of events described by Mr. Gimenez in a written narrative filed 21 days before the hearing?

II.      Analysis

[3]    Mr. Gimenez filed his personal information form (PIF) on March 8, 2004. It included a brief written narrative describing his involvement in the Social Christian Party (COPEI) and his problems with adversaries in the Fifth Republic Movement (MVR). Mr. Gimenez filed an amended PIF in May 2004, filling in some portions of the form that had been left blank in the original. In August 2004, he filed a detailed written narrative, 21 days prior to his hearing before the Board.

[4]    The Board commented on Mr. Gimenez's "new" narrative at several points in its reasons and emphasized the fact that it was filed just 21 days before the hearing. Mr. Gimenez argues that the Board's comments were unfair. In particular, he submits that:

_     it is difficult for claimants to file their PIFs in a timely manner, so it is common for original PIFs to lack detail;

_     often, original PIFs are prepared without the assistance of counsel;

_     it is natural, therefore, for PIFs to be amended and narratives to be supplemented prior to a hearing before the Board;

_     the Board's rules recognize this reality and permit the filing of amended PIFs up to 20 days prior to a hearing (Rule 29(4), Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2002-28);

_     it is wrong for the Board to draw an adverse inference from the timing of the filing of an amended PIF when its Rules have been respected;

_     had Mr. Gimenez failed to file a supplementary narrative, the Board might well have drawn an adverse inference from the absence of detail in his original PIF - a "Catch-22" situation.

[5]    I agree with Mr. Gimenez that the Board should not draw an adverse inference from the timely filing of an amended PIF or written narrative. But I disagree with his suggestion that the Board did so in his case.

[6]    The Board noted that claimants are obliged to set out the relevant facts in their PIFs. It acknowledged that this is difficult to do within the Board's time constraints. It went on to compare the "new" narrative with the original PIF and the notes taken by an immigration officer at the port of entry. The Board found numerous inconsistencies and unexplained omissions. Of particular significance was Mr. Gimenez's original claim that he was an ordinary, student member of COPEI and that he joined the party because it would help him get a job. In his later version, he said he was a committed and high-profile member of the party, responsible for recruiting new members.

[7]    The Board was perfectly entitled to take account of those discrepancies in determining the weight of the evidence before it.

[8]    Mr. Gimenez suggests that the Board unfairly characterized his conduct as displaying a lack of due diligence. Since Mr. Gimenez had complied with the Board's rules, the Board's remarks reflect an unwarranted antagonism toward his claim. However, when read in context, the Board's comment relates both to Mr. Gimenez's failure to include all relevant information in his original PIF, as well as his failure to supply corroborative documentary evidence or provide an adequate explanation for its absence as required by Rule 7 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, above. The Board's observation was not inappropriate in those circumstances. Further, I see no basis for Mr. Gimenez's suggestion that the Board failed to conduct a fair analysis of his evidence.

[9]    Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:

1.       The application for judicial review is dismissed;

2.       No question of general importance is stated.

"James W. O'Reilly"