Date: 19990303
Docket: IMM-2719-98
Between:
LUISA DAVITASHVILI
USHANGI MELADZE
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER, J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division, in which it was determined that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
[2] The applicants are citizens of Georgia. They claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution in their country by reason of Mr. Meladze's Ossete nationality.
[3] The applicants claim that the panel cannot give documentary evidence more weight than their testimony to conclude that they failed to demonstrate well-founded fear. In particular, the applicants claim to have been persecuted by the Mkhedrioni group who, among other things, allegedly burglarized and then burned his "sic shop. The panel concluded that these experiences are more like criminal acts. In fact, the documentary evidence describes the important role of this paramilitary group and their involvement in criminal activities, which include intimidating and abusing citizens. Since the documentary evidence does not describe any incidents where this group's activities are directed at citizens of Ossete origin, the panel did not believe that the applicants' claims are credible.
[4] I find that such a conclusion is reasonable. The panel is free to give preference to documentary evidence, since it enables the panel to compare the applicant's account with reality. This evidence established the criminal conduct of the Mkhedrioni group but nowhere did it describe incidents that link these criminal activities with the Ossetes in Georgia.
[5] Furthermore in Zhou, the Federal Court of Appeal recognized that the Refugee Division may prefer documentary evidence to that of the claimant.
| We are not persuaded that the Refugee Division made any error that would warrant our interference. The material relied on by the Board was properly adduced as evidence. The Board is entitled to rely on documentary evidence in preference to that of the claimant. There is no general obligation on the Board to point out specifically any and all items of documentary evidence on which it might rely. The other matters raised are also without merit. The appeal will be dismissed1. (Emphasis added) |
[6] Given the inconsistency between this evidence and the applicants' claims, the Refugee Division did not err in concluding that the applicants' allegations are not credible.
[7] There are no grounds for this Court to intervene in this case. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[8] Counsel did not submit any question to be certified.
Danièle Tremblay-Lamer
JUDGE
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
March 3, 1999.
Certified true translation
Monica F. Chamberlain
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 19990303
Docket: IMM-2719-98
BETWEEN:
LUISA DAVITASHVILI
USHANGI MELADZE
Applicants
AND:
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-2719-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: LUISA DAVITSHVILI,
USHANGI MELADZE
Applicants
AND
THE MINISTER
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: March 2, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
DATED: March 3, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Denis de Rome for the applicants
Daniel Latulippe for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
De ROME & De ROME for the applicants
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
__________________
1 Zhou v. MEI (July 18, 1994), A-492-91 (F.C.A.)
Email this Content