IMM-1944-96
BETWEEN:
JASWINDER
KAUR
JASKARAN
SINGH SIDHU
Applicants
-
and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS
FOR ORDER
JEROME, A.C.J.:
This is an application for
an order setting aside the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination
Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board which held the applicants were
not Convention refugees. At the conclusion of argument in Toronto, Ontario, on
February 25, 1997, I dismissed the application indicating that these written
reasons would follow.
The principal applicant
and her son, the minor applicant, are citizens of India. They came to Canada
on November 13, 1994, and claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution
for reasons of political opinion, religion and membership in a particular
social group.
A hearing was held before
the Refugee Division on April 2, 1996. By decision dated May 15, 1996, the
Board found as follows at pp. 6-7:
The panel finds that there is no credible evidence or trustworthy
evidence before us to make a positive determination. The claimant has not
discharged the onus of the burden of proof in establishing that she has a
well-founded fear of persecution.
In view of the panel's findings regarding the claimant's credibility, it
is not necessary to consider the gender guidelines.
As the minor claimant's alleged fear of persecution is based on the
claim of the claimant, it also fails.
The applicants now seek an
order setting that decision aside on the grounds that the tribunal erred in
law.
I dismissed the
application for the following reasons. Questions of credibility and weight of
evidence are within the jurisdiction of the Refugee Division as the trier of
fact in respect of Convention refugee claims. When the tribunal makes a
negative finding with respect to an applicant's credibility, the Court will be
reluctant to interfere with that finding, given the tribunal's opportunity and
ability to assess the witness and her demeanour in oral testimony before it. The
Board is entitled to make an adverse finding of credibility based on the
implausibility of an applicant's story, and between the applicant's story and
other evidence before it, provided the inferences drawn can be reasonably said
to exist. Negative findings with respect to an individual's credibility are
properly made, provided the tribunal gives reasons for its decision.
Here, the panel clearly
and unequivocally determined Ms. Kaur not to be a credible witness and offered
detailed reasons for its decision, citing numerous contradictions,
implausibilities and inconsistencies in her evidence. In particular, the panel
noted that the principal applicant had made significant changes to her Personal
Information Form (PIF); that there were contradictions between her PIF and her
oral testimony and between her PIF and her husband's PIF (her husband's refugee
claim was denied earlier); and, that it was implausible that she would not have
known from her father-in-law how to contact her husband in Canada.
Further, the Board
considered the principal applicant's evidence that she was illiterate and that
this accounted for the changes she made to the narrative portion of her PIF.
However, the panel found that the evidence did not satisfactorily account for the
changes made. There is nothing on the record to indicate that this was not a
reasonable finding.
In addition, the Refugee
Division made specific adverse findings of credibility with respect to the
demeanour of the witness. It noted that the principal applicant's explanation
as to why her PIF was so different from that of her husband was vague and
evasive.
I am unable to conclude
therefore, that the panel ignored the evidence before it or that its findings
were perverse or capricious. In the absence of such an overriding error, there
is simply no basis for judicial interference with the decision.
For these reasons, on
February 25, 1997, I dismissed the application.
O T T A W A
July 24, 1997
"James A. Jerome"
A.C.J.
Email this Content