Date: 20000817
Docket: IMM-4501-99
Between:
AGNES NGONGABABU
MILIA MOHAMED YAHYA
Plaintiffs
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
[1] The plaintiffs are asking the Court to quash a decision by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Refugee Division") on August 5, 1999 that the plaintiffs are not Convention refugees.
[2] The plaintiffs are Agnes Ngongababu and her daughter aged two and a half years, Milia Mohamed Yahya, citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They arrived in Canada on December 5, 1998 and claimed refugee status at once. The plaintiff Milia Mohamed Yahya based her claim on that of her mother, who feared being persecuted if she was to return to her country on account of her political opinions and the ethnic origin of her maternal grandmother. The fear of the minor plaintiff derived from her membership in a particular social group, namely the family.
[3] The Refugee Division dismissed the plaintiffs' refugee status claim on the ground that the story related by the principal plaintiff was not credible. At p. 3 of its reasons, the Refugee Division said the following:
| It appeared from the foregoing that the improbabilities that emerged from the entire story, both her political membership and her so-called association with a Tutsi grandmother, were such that the plaintiff's entire credibility was vitiated. |
[4] The reasons why the plaintiffs challenged the decision of the Refugee Division were the following:
[TRANSLATION]
| 1. The plaintiff's rights, including the confidentiality of her file, were infringed by the unjustified intervention of Mr. Doyon in this case; |
| 2. The members of the Board did not consider the plaintiff's political activities in Canada and the evidence submitted before concluding that there was no fear of persecution. |
[5] I have no hesitation in dismissing the first reason. Ms. Doyon, a lawyer in Montréal, tried to intervene in the matter at the request of the principal plaintiff's husband. The Refugee Division properly rejected this attempt to intervene.
[6] The hearing before the Refugee Division took place on July 13, 1999 and the decision is dated August 5, 1999. According to Ms. L'Écuyer, counsel for the plaintiff, the correspondence between Ms. Doyon, herself and the Refugee Division Registry caused her clients prejudice. In her memorandum (p. 42 of the plaintiff's record), Ms. L'Écuyer submitted the following:
| The evidence indicated that there were serious infringements of constitutional rights and rules that should be followed in reviewing the plaintiff's claim. The Panel made a negative decision mentioning four times that it believed the plaintiff had made up her story . . . despite the documents entered in evidence certifying that she had worked actively for the UDPS. Because of Ms. Doyon's illegal intervention in the case, at the instance of a client, justice was not seen to be done. There is a serious question whether the husband's statement that the plaintiff did not risk persecution in the DRC, contrary to what she alleged, had a decisive and negative effect on the latter's credibility. |
[7] In my view, there is nothing in the record which allows me to accept Ms. L'Écuyer's arguments. It is not enough to allege that there has been an infringement of constitutional rights and the rules of natural justice: this must be proven. Consequently, the first reason mentioned by the plaintiffs is dismissed.
[8] As to the second reason given by the plaintiffs, I am persuaded in light of the evidence that the Refugee Division's finding about the credibility of the principal plaintiff's story is entirely reasonable.
[9] Since the plaintiffs did not persuade the Court that the Refugee Division committed any error, either of fact or law, their application for judicial review will be dismissed.
Marc Nadon
Judge
O T T A W A, Ontario
August 17, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: IMM-4501-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: AGNES NGONGABABU et al.
v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 9, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NADON J.
DATED: AUGUST 17, 2000
APPEARANCES:
MARIE JOSÉE L'ÉCUYER FOR THE APPLICANT
SHERRY RAFAI FAR FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MARIE JOSÉE L'ÉCUYER FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content