Date: 20001110
Docket: IMM-6311-99
Ottawa, Ontario, the 10th day of November, 2000
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
Jorge Danilo POBLETE VIDAL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision rendered on November 29, 1999 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
Date: 20001110
Docket: IMM-6311-99
Between:
Jorge Danilo POBLETE VIDAL
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 rendered on November 29, 1999 by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, 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.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Peru. He alleges that he was persecuted in his country by reason of his alleged political opinions.
[3] This is a case in which the impugned decision is based strictly and exclusively on the applicant's lack of credibility, owing to the following contradictions and improbabilities noted by the Refugee Division, which in its opinion pertained to some essential elements of the claim at issue:
| -- When the applicant was invited to describe certain incidents referred to in his Personal Information Form (PIF), he repeated almost word for word the story that was written there. The Refugee Division concluded that this way of testifying had more to do with a "story learned by heart than with a history that had been experienced". |
| -- The applicant repeated at length what his wife had said during a particular telephone conversation. According to the applicant, she had told him that she had received some threats on September 2, 1998. However, the applicant did not mention that his wife had been attacked on October 3, 1999, an attack that occurred prior to this conversation. Questioned as to whether his wife had told him anything else, he replied that he did not remember. Confronted with this omission, he simply said that the conversation had been short and hurried. The Refugee Division concluded that the explanation was far-fetched and that an omission of such importance marred the credibility of his account. |
| -- Although a large number of documents were filed in evidence, none of them linked the applicant to his two employees, Bartolomé and Narvaez. The applicant explained that the soldiers had seized the documents on October 31, but this was not indicated in the PIF. |
| -- When the Refugee Division asked the applicant why a newspaper article claimed that his wife had left Peru when he was saying she was still there, he replied that 50% of the newspaper articles exaggerated things in order to attract more readers. The Refugee Division also found it improbable that the applicant did not know what his wife was doing in his country. |
| -- Finally, the applicant stated in his PIF that the soldiers were calling him continually. However, he later claimed that his telephone was "blocked" and that he could not receive or make any calls. When he was asked to explain why the military had blocked his telephone if they wanted him to collaborate with them, he altered his version, saying that he "assumed" they were blocking the telephone. Later he said instead that his telephone was "tapped". |
[4] Having reviewed the record, it does not seem to me that the impugned decision is based on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before the Refugee Division (see paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). Nor am I persuaded that this specialized tribunal could not have reasonably drawn the inferences that it did (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)). Accordingly, there is no need for this Court to intervene, and the application for judicial review shall be dismissed.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 10, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE: JORGE DANILO POBLETE VIDAL v. MCI |
| PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC |
| DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 11, 2000 |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 10, 2000
APPEARANCES:
LENYA KALEPDJIAN FOR THE APPLICANT
MICHEL PÉPIN FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
LENYA KALEPDJIAN FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content