Date: 20011010
Docket: IMM-6518-00
Ottawa, Ontario, the 10th day of October, 2001
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
Enamul Huque QUAZI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision rendered on November 24, 2000 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
Date: 20011010
Docket: IMM-6518-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1098
Between:
Enamul Huque QUAZI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] The applicant was the subject of an initial decision rendered by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "RD") on March 12, 1999 denying him refugee status. On judicial review, Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer quashed this decision on January 19, 2000 by consent of the parties under Rule 30 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, sending the matter back to a differently constituted panel of the RD.
[2] The present application for judicial review is addressed to the decision rendered subsequently by the RD, on November 24, 2000, ruling that the applicant is not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[3] The applicant, 30 years of age, is a citizen of Bangladesh. He alleges that he has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinions.
[4] The RD decision is simply based on the applicant's lack of credibility:
After having reviewed the personal documents and the documentary evidence as well as all of the documents adduced in the claimant's first hearing, and after carefully examining the claimant's testimony at the hearing of the De Novo case, the panel has come to the conclusion the claimant is not credible and therefore not a refugee as defined in the "Convention". . . .
[5] It should be recalled that, absent clear and persuasive evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the RD considered all of the evidence (see Hassan v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1992), 147 N.R. 317, at p. 318). Is it also necessary to point out that the panel is free to give precedence to the documentary evidence with which it confronted the claimant (see Zhou v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (July 18, 1994), A-492-91 (F.C.A.))? Also, the RD's perception that the claimant is not credible may in fact amount to a finding that there is no credible basis for his refugee claim (see Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, at p. 244). The RD may of course consider documents in relation to a previous hearing of the applicant's claim, such as the transcripts pertaining thereto (see, for example, Khalof v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 185 F.T.R. 282 and Moldoveannu v. Canada (M.C.I.) (January 24, 2001), IMM-754-00, [2001] F.C.J. no. 84 (QL)). Applying these principles to the case at bar, I have not been persuaded, after reviewing the evidence, that the RD as a specialized tribunal could not reasonably have drawn the conclusion that it did (see Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315, at pp. 316-17).
[6] Finally, this Court has often stated that when it comes to credibility and assessment of the facts, it is not the Court's job to substitute itself for the administrative tribunal where, as in this case, the applicant has failed to prove that the tribunal based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (see paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7).
[7] For all of these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
October 10, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: IMM-6518
STYLE: ENAMUL HUQUE QUAZI
v.
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 22, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: OCTOBER 10, 2001
APPEARANCES:
EVELINE FISET FOR THE APPLICANT
MARIE-NICOLE MOREAU FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
EVELINE FISET FOR THE APPLICANT
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Email this Content