Date: 20080218
Docket: IMM-3134-07
Citation: 2008 FC 206
Toronto, Ontario,
the 18th day of February 2008
Present: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington
BETWEEN :
MARCO ANTONIO CAMPUZANO GARCIA
ERICA EDITH FRIAS RESENDIZ
MIRIAM ARIADNE CAMPUZANO FRIAS
YANISET BRIYHIT CAMPUZANO FRIAS
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Mr. Garcia’s account
in his Personal Information Form (PIF) is frank, but raises several questions.
[2]
We can conceive how
Mr. Garcia might have been stopped and accosted by drug traffickers when he was
working as a delivery and courier service driver in Mexico. In his account, he describes how he was forced to
transport three packages placed in the back of his delivery truck for
approximately eight kilometers up to the police check-point, and subsequently
had to continue for approximately four more kilometers to arrive eventually at
a service station.
[3]
It is also plausible
that after undergoing such an experience, Mr. Garcia wanted to change his assigned
delivery route but that his boss did not accede to his request. Mr. Garcia
testifies that he in fact filed a complaint with the police.
[4]
Mr. Garcia says that
the driver who replaced him on his delivery route was killed, but he gave no
evidence in support of this claim. Moreover, he alleges that the bandits who
accosted him got wind of his complaint to the police, and that consequently he
had some troubles. Then he tells quite a tale as to how he ended up in Canada after staying at his mother-in-law’s in Mexico and leaving his wife and children there.
[5]
In brief, the Refugee
Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board found that Mr.
Garcia’s entire account was filled with contradictions and improbabilities and that
he was not credible. The RPD therefore dismissed his refugee status claim, ruling
that Mr. Garcia was neither a refugee within the meaning of the Convention nor
a person in need of protection.
[6]
Mr. Garcia contests
this decision and applies for judicial review thereof. He claims that the RPD
made an error of law by not conducting a thorough analysis of his refugee
status claim, and by not giving clear and explicit reasons for its decision.
[7]
Essentially, Mr.
Garcia is asking this Court to reassess the evidence that was adduced before
the RPD. When an application for judicial review
is referred to the Court, its role is not to review the facts in issue in order
to come to a conclusion different from the tribunal’s.
[8]
In this case, the
applicable standard of review is the standard of patent unreasonableness (R.K.L. v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration),
2003 F.C.T.D. 116, [2003] F.C.J. No. 162 (QL)). This Court
sees no error susceptible to judicial review.
[9]
In my view, the RPD
could reasonably draw the conclusions that it did with respect to credibility
and improbabilities. According to the Federal Court of Appeal in Shahamati v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 415,
a tribunal can conclude that there is lack of credibility by basing itself on improbabilities
in the refugee status claimant’s account, on common sense and on reason.
[10]
Moreover,
the conclusions are based on the RPD’s
assessment of the evidence and the testimony that were before it, and are
supported by detailed reasons. Consequently, they are not patently unreasonable.
[11]
For
these reasons, Mr. Garcia has not established that the Court would be justified
in intervening with regard to the RPD’s decision on his file. The
application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that:
1.
The application for judicial review be dismissed.
2.
There is no question of general importance to be certified
in this case.
“Sean Harrington”
Certified true translation
Brian McCordick, Translator
Email this Content