Date: 20040630
Docket: IMM-2251-03
Citation: 2004 FC 922
BETWEEN:
NOKUTHULA MAHLANGU,
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 of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated March 4, 2003, wherein the Board found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Nokuthula Mahlangu (the applicant) is a Ndebele woman from Bulawayo, Zimbabwe who alleges a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of political opinions that are imputed to her.
[3] The Board found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" because it found that her claim was not credible.
[4] The Board seriously questioned the applicant's allegations pertaining to her employment as a teacher in Zimbabwe. The Board noted that the applicant did not seem to have the knowledge that could be reasonably expected from someone who worked as a teacher. Furthermore, the only evidence presented to corroborate her allegations was a pay-slip which does not indicate that she was a teacher in Zimbabwe. I find that the Board could reasonably conclude, on the basis of these findings, that the applicant's allegation that she was in fact a teacher in Zimbabwe is not credible. The applicant submitted that where an applicant swears to the truth of her allegations, there is a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is a good reason to doubt of their truthfulness (Thind v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1983] F.C.J. No. 939 (F.C.A.) (QL)). In this case, I find that the Board had a good reason to doubt of the applicant's allegations that she worked as a teacher. The Board's findings that the applicant did not seem to have the general knowledge that one would expect from a teacher and the fact that the pay-slip that she submitted contains no information regarding the nature of her employment in Zimbabwe were sufficient to call into question the applicant's allegation on this point. Since the applicant's fear of persecution is directly related to her employment as a teacher, the lack of credible corroborative evidence to support her allegation that she worked as a teacher in Zimbabwe is central to her refugee claim.
[5] The Board also called into question the applicant's alleged participation in the Liberty Party of Zimbabwe (LPZ). The Board noted that the applicant was extremely vague and inconsistent when relating her involvement in the LPZ. For example, the applicant testified that the LPZ had 13 elected members of Parliament. However, according to the documentary evidence no LPZ candidates had ever been elected to Parliament. Indeed, according to the Zimbabwe Assessment dated April 2002, although the LPZ contested 13 seats in the June 2000 elections, the LPZ did not receive sufficient votes to obtain any seats. Hence, I find that the Board did not err in retaining this inconsistency in its evaluation of the applicant's credibility.
[6] In addition, the Board found that although the applicant stated that she had joined the LPZ in September 2001, her membership card bears a stamp indicating that the card was issued on July 18, 1999 and that she has been financially supporting the LPZ since January 1998. An evaluation of the applicant's membership card reveals that she paid an initial joining fee of 5 Z$ and that she also made monthly payments of 50 cents. I find that the Board cannot confidently rely on the information on the applicant's membership card regarding financial contributions because according to the ambiguous chart on the back of the card, the applicant has made monthly 50-cent payments until February 2004 or 2005 even though the exhibit is stamped January 9, 2002. Furthermore, the date of issue to which the Board refers is illegible on the photocopy contained in the Tribunal record and it is impossible for this Court to decipher on what date the membership card was issued. These findings seem to reaffirm the Board's conclusion that the membership card is not a credible piece of evidence corroborating the applicant's allegation that she is a member of the LPZ. Consequently, I find that the Board did not err in concluding that the applicant had failed to submit credible evidence to support her allegation that she was a member of the LPZ.
[7] Finally, the applicant submits that the Board's reasons were inadequate. A review of the Board's decision reveals that the latter provided precise and intelligible reasons in support of its findings such that the applicant was adequately informed of the reasons for which her refugee claim failed (Mehterian v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1992] F.C.J. 545 (F.C.A.) (QL) and Tekin v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2003] F.C.J. No. 506 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)). Consequently, the applicant's submission on this point is unfounded.
[8] The inconsistencies noted by the Board were central to the applicant's claim because they put into question the very basis of her fear of persecution. The Board clearly explained its reasons for doubting the applicant's credibility on the basis of these discrepancies.
[9] As the Federal Court of Appeal has stated in Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 at 244, a tribunal's perception that a claimant is not credible with respect to a material element of his or her claim for refugee status may amount to a finding that there is no credible evidence for that claim. Moreover, the Board may reject uncontradicted evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole, or where inconsistencies are found in the evidence (see Monteiro v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1720 (F.C.T.D.) (QL) and Akinlolu v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1997] F.C.J. No. 296 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)). Finally, it is trite law that the Board is presumed to have considered all of the evidence before it.
[10] For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the Board committed no patently unreasonable error in its disposition of this case. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 30, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2251-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: NOKUTHULA MAHLANGU v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 8, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: June 30, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Jeffrey Platt FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Evan Liosis FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jeffrey Platt FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content