Date: 20020926
Docket: IMM-5106-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1006
Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, the 26th day of September, 2002
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen
BETWEEN:
FRANCISCO ANDRE NSUNGANI, SOFIA ESTER MABANZA, and
SILVIA N'SUNGANI, DANILSON KIALANDA, and PRISCILLA N'SUNGANI by their litigation guardian, SOFIA ESTER MABANZA
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee
Determination Division ("CRDD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board, dated October 12, 2001 wherein the applicants were found not to be Convention refugees.
[2] The male applicant, Francisco Andre Nsungani and the female applicant, Sofia Ester
Mabanza, are citizens of Angola and spouses. Silvia N'sungani and Priscilla N'sungani are their minors daughters. Danilson Kialanda, a minor, is the son of the female claimant and her first spouse, now deceased.
[3] The male applicant alleged a well-founded fear of persecution based on his perceived
political opinions, viz. a spy for UNITA. The female applicant alleged similarly, that she was a supporter of UNITA, and the children allege fear of persecution as the family of a UNITA spy. All of them also claim a well founded fear of persecution based on their membership in the Bakongo tribe in Angola.
[4] The issue in this matter is whether the panel erred in finding that the male and female
applicants were not credible witnesses.
[5] The standard of review for findings of credibility by the CRDD is patent unreasonableness,
as set out in Aguebor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, (1993), 160 N.R. 315, [1993] F.C.J. No. 732 (F.C.A.), as per Decary J.A. at paragraph 4:
There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review.
[6] The CRDD came to its conclusions after listing numerous inconsistencies in the applicants'
testimony and PIFs. The tribunal found that:
- · the main applicant elaborated on his role in a 1992 UNITA campaign in order to bolster his claim;
- · the main applicant fabricated or exaggerated instances on torture and imprisonment;
- · there were inconsistencies between the male and female applicants' stories regarding their departure from Angola and the assistance they received form individuals who may have been smugglers;
- · the female applicant was evasive, inconsistent and contradictory regarding the documents and means she used to travel to Canada; and,
- · both applicants generally lacked credibility.
[7] The applicants submit that it is unreasonable that the CRDD did not allow them to provide
additional information concerning their claims. However, the CRDD did not find the applicants' testimony to contain "additional' information", rather, the CRDD found that the information was fabricated, contradictory, or unsubstantiated.
[8] The applicants submit that the panel came to findings that were perverse and without due
regard to the evidence before them. I disagree. The CRDD's decision, which is 20 pages in length, shows careful analysis of the evidence and conclusions that were reasonably open to the CRDD.
[9] It was open to the panel to draw negative inferences regarding inconsistent and
contradictory information in the PIFs and oral testimony of applicants. The CRDD is the specialized tribunal in the best position to gauge the credibility of the applicants.
[10] In view of the foregoing, I find that the applicants have not shown that the credibility
findings of the CRDD are patently unreasonable so as to warrant the intervention of this Court.
ORDER
This application for judicial review is denied. Neither counsel recommended a question be certified, and no question is certified.
"Michael A. Kelen"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-5106-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: FRANCISCO ANDRE NSUNGANI, ET AL
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: KELEN J.
DATED: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2002
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Joel Sandaluk
For the Applicants
Mr. Lorne McClenaghan
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Joel Sandaluk
Mamann & Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
74 Victoria Street
Suite 303
Toronto, Ontario
M5C 2A5
For the Applicants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20020926
Docket: IMM-5106-01
BETWEEN:
FRANCISCO ANDRE NSUNGANI, ET AL
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
Email this Content