Date: 20010316
Docket: IMM-1768-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 184
Between:
Prem Singh
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated March 13, 2000, by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, in which it was determined 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.
[2] The applicant was born in India on March 20, 1931. He claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of perceived political opinions.
[3] The decision of the Refugee Division was based on the applicant's lack of credibility in establishing his identity.
[4] At the hearing, before this Court, the applicant's new counsel acknowledged that there were several obvious discrepancies and implausibilities in her client's narrative. However, she claimed that these established that the applicant was unfit to testify before the Refugee Division, thereby restricting herself to a single argument based on procedural unfairness.
[5] However, judging from its decision, the panel examined the applicant's ability to testify at the very outset. After considering several medical evaluations which were part of the applicant's file, the panel stated as follows:
No psychological or psychiatric follow-up or evaluation has been conducted since December 1998. At the beginning of the hearing, the designated representative, Mrs. J. Jakubowski, told the tribunal that the claimant was confused in the past but presently seemed to be better. She did not know if he was on medication or if he was seeing a doctor. During the hearing the claimant was readily answering all the questions which were directed to him. He had a pleasant demeanor, was rather animated, maintained an eye contact with the tribunal and did not seem to be depressed or withdrawn. He had no difficulties in reciting his story with all the details and dates, as it was presented in his written narrative. The serious problems appeared however when we asked the claimant questions of clarification or when we asked him to explain in more detail some situations described in his PIF.
The tribunal was satisfied that the claimant understood questions which were addressed to him and the purpose of those questions. At the end of the hearing, the claimant's designated representative also confirmed that according to her the claimant understood the questions, although she believed that towards the end of the hearing he was tired and might have some difficulty in understanding certain questions. However, when it had happened she asked the tribunal to reformulate the question. The designated representative did not feel that any other area of the claimant's testimony should be explored further and did not wish to ask him any questions herself.
[6] The panel deemed it advisable to assess the applicant's capacity to testify, not at the request of the designated representative nor of the applicant's former counsel who was also present, but as a result of observations made at the end of the hearing by the refugee claims officer, who, without drawing any conclusions, suggested that more weight be given to the objective documentary evidence if the panel was not satisfied that the applicant was able to testify. It should be noted that the applicant's former counsel made no objections or representations during the hearing regarding the applicant's psychological state. In her written observations, which had to be filed within 15 days of the hearing, she merely requested, in terms of her client's ability to testify, that the panel assess his credibility by considering his age, level of education, physical and psychological health, emotional vulnerability, challenges, and the norms and values of his country of origin. After reading the hearing transcript and the Refugee Division's decision, I have determined that this was indeed what the panel did. Under the circumstances, I fail to see why my own appreciation of the applicant's psychological state should be substituted for the panel's careful assessment.
[7] The panel also held that the documentary evidence did not support the existence of an objective, well-founded fear of persecution. Since the applicant failed to establish his identity to the panel's satisfaction, there is no reason to consider this other aspect of the decision. In fact, given the particular circumstances of the case, the panel's perception that the applicant was not credible on a fundamental issue such as his own identity effectively amounts to a finding that there is no credible evidence to justify his refugee claim (see, for example,
Sheikh v. Canada, [1990] 3 F.C. 238, at page 244).
[8] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 16, 2001
Certified true translation
Sophie Debbané, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1768-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Prem Singh
- and -
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 6, 2001
REASONS For Order By: Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: March 16, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Odette Desjardins FOR THE APPLICANT
Jocelyne Murphy FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Odette Desjardins FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Date: 20010316
Docket: IMM-1768-00
Ottawa, Ontario, the 16th day of March 2001
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
Prem Singh
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
OF CANADA
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of a decision dated March 13, 2000, by the
Convention Refugee Determination Division determining that the applicant is not a Convention
Refugee is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Sophie Debbané, LLB
Email this Content