Date: 20041001
Docket: IMM-706-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1358
Ottawa, Ontario, October 1, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
VICTOR AIME KOUKA
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review, pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (Act), of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (panel) dated December 30, 2003. In that decision, the panel determined that the applicant did not qualify as a Convention refugee under section 96 or as a person in need of protection under section 97.
ISSUE
[2] The issue is as follows:
1. Was it patently unreasonable for the panel to find that the applicant lacked credibility?
[3] For the following reasons, I answer this question in the negative and the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[4] The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of Congo alleging that he is a person in need of protection within the meaning of the Act. He maintains that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in his country of nationality because of his political opinion. He alleges that his life would be at risk, that he would be subjected to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment and that he would be in danger of torture if he were to return to his country.
[5] The facts alleged are summarized by the panel as follows. The applicant stated that he had signed a petition denouncing the Congolese government's silence and inaction following the arrest and/or disappearance of 350 Congolese refugees escorted by the High Commissioner for Refugees (HCR) in May 1999, when they returned to the Congo. The applicant contended that he had participated in the committee calling for a parliamentary inquiry by the minister to find these people. He was honorary chairperson for the Association congolaise des Nations Unies ("Congolese United Nations Association" (ACNU)).
[6] The applicant stated that while he was visiting Canada he received from authorities of his country three notices to appear with regard to a trial in Brazzaville, Congo in 2003, in relation to the arrests and disappearances of the refugees in 1999. Informed by his lawyer of the receipt of these notices, he maintained that the Congolese government wanted to make him testify to exonerate himself. He submitted that the Congolese authorities threatened any person who, like him, did not "support their cause". According to his version of the story, his life was in danger, more so than the lives of the others who signed the petition, because he was perceived as a "leader". The applicant feared that his life was in danger and claimed refugee status in Canada on June 18, 2003.
IMPUGNED DECISION
[7] The panel determined that there was no credible and trustworthy evidence that there was a reasonable chance that the applicant would be persecuted if he were to return to the People's Republic of Congo.
[8] According to the panel, the applicant did not provide a credible explanation for the reasons why his government had summoned him. The applicant claimed that he was threatened by the authorities of his country because he was a "leader" signing the petition. There is nothing to tie the notices to appear with the petition. There is no evidence in the record confirming that the "leaders" were in danger. The applicant did not provide an explanation about the delay between the signing of the petition, i.e. in 2000, and the notices to appear in 2003.
[9] The panel drew a negative inference from the fact that the applicant was able to leave his country without difficulty on March 13, 2003, when he had been summoned three days earlier.
[10] Finally, the member was of the opinion that the applicant had wanted to embellish his refugee claim when at the end of the hearing he added certain facts which had not been raised earlier.
ANALYSIS
Was it patently unreasonable for the panel to find that the applicant lacked credibility?
[11] The issue of credibility is a question of fact. The applicable standard of review in such situations is the standard of the patently unreasonable decision (Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.) at pages 316 and 317).
[12] In the Court's opinion, the applicant did not meet his burden of proof. More than 100,000 people signed a petition. The claimant feared that he was targeted by the authorities because of his Lari origin and also because he considers himself a "leader". There is nothing in the evidence establishing that the people who signed, the "leaders" or even the Laris are threatened by the Congolese authorities.
[13] The implausibilities raised by the panel are not patently unreasonable. For example, the member determined that the letters of applicant's counsel were self-serving documents. Considering the obvious contradiction between the applicant's testimony and the missives that he received from his counsel, the member was entitled to make such a determination.
[14] The applicant has not persuaded me that the Board made errors requiring the intervention of the Court. The applicant claims that the decision-maker did not assign any probative value to the three notices to appear that he received. However, the panel considered them and determined that there was no connection with the signing of the petition. Once again, this is another example of a power the Board is entitled to exercise.
[15] The parties have declined to submit serious questions of general importance. No question will be certified.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed, No question is certified.
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-706-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: VICTOR AIME KOUKA
v.
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 29, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: BEAUDRY J.
DATE OF REASONS: October 1, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Luc R. Desmarais FOR THE APPLICANT
Marie Claude Demers FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Luc R. Desmarais FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content