IMM-1853-96
OTTAWA,
ONTARIO, THIS 27th DAY OF MARCH 1997
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE YVON PINARD
BETWEEN:
RUDY
EDUARDO OLAVE MARDONES,
JOSE
ANTONIO OLAVE MARDONES,
Applicants,
-
and -
MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
O
R D E R
The
application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division dated May
6, 1996, denying the applicants Convention refugee status, is dismissed.
Judge
Certified
true translation
C.
Delon, LL.L.
IMM-1853-96
BETWEEN:
RUDY
EDUARDO OLAVE MARDONES,
JOSE
ANTONIO OLAVE MARDONES,
Applicants,
-
and -
MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS
FOR ORDER
PINARD
J.:
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division
dated May 6, 1996, determining that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
The
decision of the Refugee Division is based on the conclusion that the
applicants' story is not credible. The Board reached this conclusion because
of the inconsistencies between the applicants' personal information forms and
their testimony, and also because it considered it implausible that the
principle applicant would have been targeted by the Manuel Rodriguez Front.
Lastly, the Refugee Division found that the applicants' conduct, in that they
failed to take [translation]
"serious measures" to protect themselves, was inconsistent with a
fear of persecution.
In
Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.),
Mr. Justice Décary stressed the restraint that must be adopted in respect of a
finding of credibility in this sort of case:
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 better than the Refugee Division is in a
position to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary
inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division are not so
unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to
judicial review. In Giron, the Court merely observed that in the area
of plausibility, the unreasonableness of a decision may be more palpable, and
so more easily identifiable, since the account appears on the face of the
record. In our opinion, Giron in no way reduces the burden that rests
on an appellant, of showing that the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division
could not reasonably have been drawn. In this case, the appellant has not
discharged this burden.
In
the instant case, the Refugee Division indicated very clearly the reasons why
it did not find the applicants credible. In general, I am of the opinion that
the inferences drawn by the Board are not unreasonable and that despite the
errors of fact, which I do not consider to have had a determining effect, they
are fully supported by the evidence.
Accordingly,
the application for judicial review must be dismissed.
Moreover,
like counsel for the parties, I do not believe that there is any question to be
certified here.
O T T A
W A
March
27, 1997
Judge
Certified
true translation
C.
Delon, LL.L.
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL
DIVISION
NAMES
OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT
FILE NO: IMM-1853-96
STYLE
OF CAUSE: RUDY EDUARDO OLAVE MARDONES
JOSE
ANTONIO OLAVE MARDONES
v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE
OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF
HEARING: MARCH 19, 1997
REASONS
FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: MARCH
27, 1997
APPEARANCES:
MICHEL
LE BRUN FOR THE
APPLICANTS
LISA
MAZIADE FOR THE
RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
MICHEL
LE BRUN FOR THE
APPLICANTS
MONTRÉAL,
QUEBEC
GEORGE
THOMSON FOR THE
RESPONDENTS
DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Email this Content