Date: 20110405
Docket: IMM-4692-10
Citation: 2011 FC 414
[UNREVISED CERTIFIED
ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec, December 5, 2011
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
|
|
FRITZNEL FRANÇOIS
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS
FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of the negative decision dated July 29,
2010, by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board
(the panel).
[2]
The
application for judicial review will be dismissed for the following reasons.
[3]
Fritznel
François (the applicant), a citizen of Haiti, fears that he will be persecuted if
he were to return to his country, because he alleges that he was a member of
the MOCHRENA political group from March 1997 to February 2000.
[4]
He
fled Haiti for the United
States
in 2000, where he filed a claim for asylum that was refused. The applicant
travelled to Canada in May 2008 and claimed refugee protection in Canada.
[5]
The
panel found the applicant not to be credible by reason of his lack of knowledge
of the MOCHRENA party, of which he claimed to have been a member for three
years, and of the steps he took for his asylum claim in the United
States.
[6]
Moreover,
the panel, citing Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
(C.A.), [1994] 1 F.C. 589, was also of the view that an internal
flight alternative (IFA) was available to him, either in Jérémie or Les Cayes,
cities that are far from Port-de-Paix, where the persecution took place.
[7]
The
standard of review in similar matters is reasonableness (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9,
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 190).
[8]
After
reviewing the evidence, the transcript as well as the parties’ submissions, I
believe that the reasons given by the panel with regard to the applicant’s lack
of credibility are justified.
[9]
Given
the applicant’s vague and inaccurate answers about the MOCHRENA party, the
panel was justified in finding that it did not believe his story.
[10]
As
to the possibility of an IFA, the panel correctly directed itself in law in
applying the principles set out by the case law to the case that was before it.
The applicant was given the opportunity to bolster his evidence and his
personal situation was taken into consideration.
[11]
It
is not the function of the Court to re-weigh the evidence when the panel’s
reasons and findings are supported by the evidence, as in the case at bar. This
decision is very succinct. It could have included additional details, but it
cannot be described as being unreasonable.
[12]
The
parties did not submit any question for certification and this matter does not
contain any.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that the application
for judicial review be dismissed. No question is certified.
“Michel Beaudry”
Certified true
translation
Sebastian Desbarats,
Translator
Email this Content