Date: 20100618
Docket: IMM-6106-09
Citation: 2010 FC 664
Montréal, Quebec, June 18, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mainville
BETWEEN:
JAIME HERNANDO RAMIREZ MARTIN
DORA NANCY PULIDO
SUAREZ
HAYSEL MAISIUTH RAMIREZ
YITZHAKE ZAMITH RAMIREZ
Applicants
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1]
This is an
application for judicial review pursuant to sections 72 et seq. of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), filed
by Jaime Hernando Ramirez Martin (the male applicant), by Dora
Nancy Pulido Suarez (the female applicant) and their two children against a decision of the
Refugee Protection Division (the panel) of the Immigration and Refugee Board, bearing
numbers MA8-01463, MA8-01464, MA8-01465 and MA8-01466 and
rendered on November 5, 2009.
[2]
The application for judicial review shall be
dismissed for the reasons below.
The
children
[3]
Although the children's claim for refugee protection was
withdrawn before the panel in view of their American citizenship, their names
were included in the judicial review proceedings before this Court. Seeing as
the application for judicial review does not involve the two children, it is
dismissed out of hand.
Background
[4]
The applicants are citizens of Colombia. They allege that
they have been operating retail businesses in Bogota since 1993. They also allege
that the businesses have been subject to a "war tax" by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) for years.
[5]
The female applicant lived for a long time in the United
States, namely in 1995 and 1996, so that she could give birth to her first
child there. She returned to Colombia in March 1996 only to leave again for the
United States in May 1997 to give birth to her second child. She stayed in the
United States until June 2006.
[6]
In January 1998, the male applicant joined the female
applicant in the United States leaving the administration of their businesses
in the hands of his brothers. He stayed there until July 2005. He then returned
to Colombia to resume administration of the businesses. He states that he engaged
in political activities and received death threats from the FARC, yet, oddly
enough, he still encouraged the female applicant to return to Colombia in June
2006.
[7]
The male applicant then alleges that he received new
threats from the FARC, and so he decided to leave Colombia in October 2007 to
make his way to Mexico, crossed through the United States and finally ended up
at the Canadian border on January 4, 2008, where he claimed refugee protection
for himself, the female applicant and their two children.
The panel's
decision
[8]
The panel rejected the claim for refugee protection mainly
on the ground that the applicants lacked credibility. The panel is of the view
that the applicants' numerous trips between Colombia and the United States are
not consistent with their allegations of fear of persecution. The panel notes
on a number of occasions the implausibility of the applicants' story, particularly
at paragraphs 19 to 21 of its decision.
The
applicants' position
[9]
The applicants allege that the panel was overzealous in looking for contradictions in the testimony of Mr. Ramirez Martin, interpreted the evidence in an
unreasonable manner and did not consider all of the evidence.
The respondent's position
[10]
The respondent submits that it is well established that assessing
the applicants' credibility and the explanations they provided during the hearing of their refugee
protection claim are within the scope and expertise of the panel. The panel is also deemed
to have considered all of the evidence unless otherwise
proven, which the applicants failed to do. The panel considered all of the
applicants' explanations but found them to be unsatisfactory. The fact that the
applicants repeatedly returned to Colombia is determinative in this case.
The applicable
standard
of review
[11]
It is trite law that the standard of review applicable to a
decision of the Refugee Protection Division with respect to a refugee
protection claim and based on the applicants' lack of credibility is the standard of reasonableness. Such a standard is so well-known that it does not warrant further
discussion. The panel's findings on the applicants' credibility are therefore entitled to
considerable deference.
Analysis
[12]
The only important issue here is whether the panel's assessment
of the applicants' credibility is reasonable.
[13]
The panel heard the applicants’
testimony in person and was able to assess their behaviour during the hearing. There is no evidence before me allowing me to conclude that the panel's
decision as to its assessment of the applicants' credibility is unreasonable.
[14]
In fact, I note that the applicants returned to Colombia
often over the years, a behaviour that is clearly inconsistent with their allegations.
I also note that the male applicant's brothers administered the businesses, and
the applicants did not submit any credible evidence establishing that the
brothers' security would have been compromised by that.
[15]
Plenty of evidence exists to conclude that the panel's decision
based on the implausibility of the applicants' story is reasonable.
[16]
The
application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
[17]
The
parties posed no question for certification pursuant to paragraph 74(d)
of the Act, and no question is certified
JUDGMENT
THE
COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the
application for judicial review be dismissed.
"Robert M. Mainville"
Certified
true translation
Daniela
Possamai
Email this Content