Date: 20070622
Docket: IMM-4571-06
Citation: 2007 FC 669
Ottawa, Ontario, June 22,
2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
MENTOR TOLA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Mentor
Tola is a young Albanian citizen, who claims to fear members of a neighbouring
family, who had allegedly entered into a blood feud with his own family.
According to Mr. Tola, this feud had its genesis in a land dispute. The
Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected his
claim, finding that his story was not credible.
[2]
Mr.
Tola now seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision, asserting that several
of the Board’s factual findings were patently unreasonable. He further submits
that the Board erred in refusing to give weight to his documentary evidence.
[3]
For
the reasons that follow, I am not persuaded that the Board’s decision was
patently unreasonable. As a consequence, the application for judicial review will
be dismissed.
The Tola Family’s Prior
Ownership of the Disputed Land
[4]
The
Board provided very brief reasons for its decision. A review of those reasons
discloses that the primary reason for the Board’s failure to believe Mr. Tola’s
story resulted from a discrepancy in his evidence regarding the family’s prior
ownership of the disputed property.
[5]
In
Mr. Tola’s Personal Information Form (or “PIF”), he stated that the land had
been “restored” to his family in the early 1990’s, whereas in his oral testimony,
he affirmed that the family had never owned the land in question prior to being
given it by the government in 1992.
[6]
Mr.
Tola argues that it was clear from his PIF that he did not know all of the
details of the history of the dispute between the families, and that he would
be attempting to get additional information about it before his refugee
hearing. As a consequence, he says, it was patently unreasonable for the Board
to seize on what was really a minor discrepancy in his evidence to find that his
story was not credible.
[7]
I
do not agree that this was a minor discrepancy. The conflict resulting from
the alleged land dispute and the ensuing blood feud were the centerpiece of his
claim, and thus his testimony on this issue was clearly of central importance.
[8]
Moreover,
Mr. Tola’s PIF specifically states that the land was “restored” to his family.
It was after this statement that he went on to say in the PIF that he did not
know all of the details of the dispute, beyond what he had already stated,
suggesting that he did in fact know about the restoration of the property.
[9]
Finally,
and most importantly, when asked about this discrepancy at the hearing, Mr.
Tola did not offer the explanation now being advanced, and say that he had
obtained further clarification of the issue after completing his PIF. Rather
he testified that he had not noticed the error when he reviewed the PIF prior
to signing it. This explanation was considered by the Board and rejected.
[10]
In
the circumstances, I am not persuaded that this finding was patently
unreasonable.
The Failure to Mention
the Land Dispute or Blood Feud to the Immigration Officer
[11]
A
second reason given by the Board for disbelieving Mr. Tola’s story was that at
the time that he made his inland refugee claim, Mr. Tola made no mention of
either a land dispute or a blood feud.
[12]
A
review of the Immigration Officer’s notes discloses that when he was asked why
he was seeking refugee protection in Canada, Mr. Tola provided quite a lengthy
and detailed description of his having allegedly been attacked by his
neighbours, of the aftermath of the attack, and of the ensuing conflict between
his family and their neighbours. Nowhere in this narrative is there any
mention of a land dispute. Indeed, when the Immigration Officer asked Mr. Tola
why he had been attacked by his neighbours, he said that he did not know.
[13]
Mr.
Tola’s story of a land dispute does not surface until some three weeks later,
when he completed his PIF. In these circumstances, I see nothing unreasonable
in the Board’s finding that this called Mr. Tola’s credibility into question.
[14]
It
is true that the Board was in error in finding that Mr. Tola did not mention
the blood feud to the Immigration Officer, as the Officer’s notes contain a
clear reference to there allegedly being a blood feud between the two families.
However, given the other problems with Mr. Tola’s story, I am not persuaded
that this error, by itself, provides a sufficient foundation for setting aside
the Board’s decision.
Robbery as a Motive for
the Attack
[15]
The
Board also erred in stating that Mr. Tola told the Immigration Officer that his
attackers were trying to rob him. In fact, Mr. Tola stated that the police had
suggested robbery as a possible motive for the attack. However, this is not a
material error as whether it was Mr. Tola who raised the possibility of robbery
as a motive for the attack, or the police who had suggested it, the point was
that Mr. Tola never mentioned the issue of the land dispute in his interview with
the Immigration Officer as a motive for the attack.
The Board’s Treatment of
the Documentary Evidence
[16]
Given
that the Board did not believe Mr. Tola’s story of having been targeted in a
blood feud, it was not unreasonable for the Board to choose to give little
weight to his documentary evidence.
Conclusion
[17]
For
these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[18]
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