Date: 20090520
Docket: IMM-2938-08
Citation: 2009 FC 524
Calgary, Alberta, May 20,
2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
CHANDRA
WATI PRASAD
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Chandra Wati Prasad is a citizen of Fiji of Indo-Fijian ancestry. Her
refugee claim was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division of the
Immigration and Refugee Board, which found her story of persecution at the
hands of an ethnic Fijian landowner not to be credible.
[2]
For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the Board’s decision
was reasonable. As a consequence, the application for judicial review will be
dismissed.
Analysis
[3]
The applicant and her late husband were farmers in Fiji. In 1999, the
lease on the family’s farm expired, and the landowner refused to renew the
lease. The couple then purchased a piece of land from an ethnic Fijian
landowner, and the family built a home on the property. After the applicant’s
husband died, the applicant says that native Fijians demanded money from the
family. She alleges that she was physically assaulted by the extortionists,
and had to flee to a refugee camp. Because she did not feel safe in the
refugee camp, she came to Canada, where she joined other members of her family.
[4]
As the Board noted, there were a number of difficulties with the
applicant’s story. For example, she had asserted, both at the port of entry
and in her Personal Information Form (or “PIF”), that she had been pushed
around by the native Fijians in May of 2006. At her refugee hearing, the
applicant stated that she had been pushed around by native Fijians on one
occasion, in March of 2006. When the discrepancy in the dates of the assault
was pointed out to her, the applicant then described a second pushing incident,
which she says took place in May of 2006. The applicant then went on to say
that incidents of this nature took place “a few times”.
[5]
Given that the physical assault or assaults on the applicant were
central to her refugee claim, the omissions and inconsistencies in the
applicant’s evidence on this issue were clearly material to her claim.
[6]
The Board also noted that there were inconsistencies in the applicant’s
story as it related to the status of the family home. Although the applicant
claimed that she and her husband had purchased the property on which the family
home was located, she also testified that the owner of the land would come to
her home to collect what she described as “the lease money” or “the rent”, and
would demand extra money over and above the amount owing.
[7]
The Board was also troubled by the fact that the applicant claimed in
her testimony that the landowner would come to the refugee camp too seek her
out when he was drunk. This too was not mentioned in her PIF, which simply
stated that the applicant did not feel safe in the refugee camp, without
offering any explanation for why that was. As counsel for the respondent
pointed out, there are many reasons why someone might not feel safe in a
refugee camp. Once again, the Board’s conclusion that this was a significant
omission was reasonable.
[8]
The Board also noted that the applicant had provided two completely
different explanations for her failure to report the alleged violent attack or
attacks to the police. In her PIF, the applicant said that she did not seek
police assistance, as the police will not protect Indo-Fijians. In contrast,
at her refugee hearing, the applicant stated, for the first time, that the
native Fijians who had assaulted her had threatened to kill her if she sought
police assistance.
[9]
Once again, the inconsistency in the applicant’s evidence on this point
goes directly to the central issue in the case, and the Board’s finding that
there was an important contradiction in the applicant’s story is one that was
amply supported by the record.
[10]
The applicant argues that the Board ought to have given consideration to
the fact that she is an illiterate elderly widow in assessing her testimony.
First of all, it is clear from the reasons that the Board was well aware of the
fact that the applicant was 60 years of age and had an eighth grade education.
It is also noteworthy that the applicant had the assistance of counsel
throughout the process, including in relation to the preparation of her PIF.
With respect to the applicant’s alleged illiteracy, not only is there no
evidence to support this assertion, there is no indication in either the body
of the applicant’s affidavit or in its jurat that the affidavit had to be read
to her in order for her to understand it.
[11]
Finally, the decision in
Hristova v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Citizenship) (1994), 75 F.T.R. 18, relied upon by the applicant is clearly
distinguishable, as the Court in that case found that the Board had
ignored evidence relating to a central finding. That is not the case here.
Conclusion
[12]
For these reasons, I am satisfied that the Board’s finding that the
applicant was not credible was reasonable, and that the decision to dismiss her
refugee claim is one that falls within the range of possible
acceptable outcomes that are defensible in light of the facts and the law: see Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, at paragraph 47. As a consequence, the
application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[13]
Neither party has suggested a question for certification, and none
arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This
application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2.
No serious question of general importance is certified.
“Anne
Mactavish”
Email this Content