Date: 19990325
Docket: IMM-3219-98
BETWEEN:
LAKVIR SINGH BHATTI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SHARLOW, J.:
[1] This is a judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division(CRDD) that the applicant is not a Convention refugee. The reasons for decision are based entirely on the CRDD's assessment of the applicant's credibility.
[2] The first and apparently the most important reason the CRDD gave for finding the applicant not to be credible relates to two documents the applicant offered in evidence. These documents were obtained from India after the commencement of the hearing in an attempt to corroborate the applicant's allegation that he had been arrested and released on the strength of a bond posted by the sarpanch of his village. One of the documents purports to be a copy of the bond signed by a police officer and the applicant, and other purports to be a statement signed by the sarpanch verifying the facts as to the arrest and bond. The CRDD concluded that these documents should be given no weight, and gave reasons for that conclusion.
[3] Two of the comments made by the CRDD in the course of those reasons are not logical. First, the CRDD appears to draw a negative inference from the fact that the documents are in English even though the applicant speaks no English. I can see no basis for concluding that the applicant's inability to speak English is relevant to the language of the documents. Second, the CRDD says that the applicant could not explain why the documents were in English. It is far from clear why he should be expected to know why they were in English.
[4] However, the CRDD also noted that the documents were not produced until after the commencement of the hearing, they are not sworn or authenticated, and there is no evidence as to the circumstances in which they were created. Those observations are supportable on material in the record and provide a sufficient basis for the CRDD's conclusion that these documents should be given no weight and therefore are not capable of corroborating the applicant's story.
[5] The CRDD also concluded that the documents were fabricated. That conclusion was reasonably open to them on the record, and it supports their conclusion that the applicant was not credible.
[6] The other basis for the adverse credibility finding was that the applicant testified at the hearing that he was fingerprinted and photographed when he was arrested, but his personal information form did not mention that. It is common ground that this was an important aspect of the applicant's claim, bearing not only on the allegations as to his arrest but also the basis for his fear of persecution should he return to India.
[7] The applicant was asked at the hearing to explain the omission. He said that as he speaks no English, the form was completed through an interpreter. He said that he told the interpreter about this fact and was assured that it was included on the form. The CRDD says that the applicant "could not explain" the omission. In fact he offered an explanation, but it was an explanation that the CRDD may or may not have believed. I can find no error in their rejection of the applicant's explanation.
[8] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Karen R. Sharlow"
JUDGE
Calgary, Alberta
March 25, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-3219-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: LAKVIR SINGH BHATTI v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: March 25, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF SHARLOW, J.:
DATED: March 25, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Charles R. Darwent for the Applicant
Mr. Brad Hardstaff for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Charles R. Darwent
Calgary, Alberta for the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondent
Email this Content