IMM-3697-96
BETWEEN:
AUGUSTA EGBOCHI
INNOCENT
Applicant
-
AND -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS
FOR ORDER
(Delivered orally from the Bench
on
July 23, 1997, as edited)
McKEOWN J.
The
applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, seeks judicial review of the decision dated
October 8, 1996 of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board
(the Board) wherein the Board determined the applicant not to be a Convention
refugee.
The
issues are whether the Board in its credibility finding misconstrued the
evidence and failed to take into account relevant evidence and failed to
confront the applicant with alleged inconsistencies.
I
will review the third issue first. I concur with MacKay J. who said in Danquah
v. The Secretary of State of Canada, November 17, 1994, Court File
IMM-105-94 at pp. 2-3:
... A hearing tribunal has no
obligation to point to aspects of the applicant's evidence that it finds
unconvincing where the onus is on the applicant to establish a well-founded
fear of persecution for reasons related to Convention refugee grounds.
This
disposes of the third issue.
With
respect to the credibility findings of the Board, I again agree with MacKay J.
when he stated in Akinlolu v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
March 14, 1997, Court File IMM-551-96 at p. 6:
Where the determination of the
panel ultimately turns on its assessment of credibility, an applicant for
judicial review has a heavy burden, as the reviewing Court must be persuaded
that the determination made by the panel is perverse or capricious or without
regard to the evidence before it. Thus, even where the reviewing Court might
itself have come to a different conclusion on the evidence it will not intervene
unless the applicant establishes that the decision of the panel is essentially
without foundation in the evidence.
I
will review briefly the applicant's submissions in respect of alleged errors by
the Board. The Board found the applicant's testimony with respect to the
finding of the body of Gedeon to be at variance with the documentary evidence.
In my view, the Board's findings respecting the documentary evidence were open
to it. It was not necessary to review each and every piece of documentary
evidence separately.
The
applicant submits that the Board's findings on credibility concerning the
applicant's statement that only the wife of Gedeon had left Kano was in error.
Again the Board's findings were open to it on the evidence.
The
applicant submitted the Board's finding on her awareness of the curfew was in
error. In my view, the Board drew a plausible inference based on the evidence.
The
applicant also submitted that the Board's finding that she did not live in Kano
was in error. Again the Board's findings on credibility and implausibility
were open to it. In Aguebor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration
(1993), 160 N.R. 315 Décary J.A. stated at 316:
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 ...
The
Board's finding on the language issue was open to it. The Board was not
compelled to accept her explanation.
In
light of the Board's findings on her credibility in general its finding on the
education certificate was open to it.
In
spite of the applicant's counsel's able submissions, the Board did not err in
any material finding on credibility. Therefore, the application for judicial
review is dismissed.
_______________________________
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 8, 1997
Email this Content