Docket:
IMM-12632-12
Citation: 2014 FC 50
Ottawa, Ontario, January 20, 2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
LUCIA VICTORA VILLA MONTOYA
|
|
MANUEL HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ DIAZ
|
|
(A.K.A. MANUEL HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ)
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Delivered orally in Toronto on December
18, 2013).
[1]
This application for judicial review is made by
a husband and wife from Colombia who were denied refugee status and protection
in a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board (the Board) dated November 15, 2012.
[2]
The issue is whether the Board’s adverse
credibility finding is reasonable. It was based on the following:
Employment
a. The Board concluded that the principal applicant failed
to adequately explain why he stated at the port of entry that his employer in Colombia was Telefonica Telecom and that his position gave him access to secret codes which
allowed internet access to the police, justice, and administration departments
of the Columbian government. He said that the FARC wanted the codes so that it
could access the departments’ servers. In his amended Personal Information Form
(PIF) the principal applicant again stated that his employer was Telefonica
Telecom. He also said that he “managed” internet, data, and voice channels for
the government departments described above. However, he did not say in his
amended PIF that he had access to any secret codes. His oral testimony on his
access to secret codes was inconsistent. At one point he said that he had no
access to secret or confidential information but at another point he indicated
that he did have access to codes. The Board concluded that the principal
applicant had misled it and had bolstered his claim by saying that he worked
for Telefonica Telecom when in fact he worked for a number of its customers.
Further, the Board was not satisfied that he had access to any secret
information. Accordingly, the Board did not accept his profile as a person who
could give FARC the secret codes it allegedly sought.
Delay
b. The Board concluded that the principal applicant failed
to adequately explain why he delayed leaving Colombia. The abduction by members
of FARC occurred on October 14, 2010 (the Abduction), and the principal
applicant and his wife did not flee until December 21, 2010. Two explanations
were given for this delay. First, the Board was told that the principal
applicant feared that he and his wife would experience problems at the border
if they did not take the time to give one month’s notice to their employers
before they left the country. Second, the Board was told that the applicants
had purchased tickets for a holiday in New York several months before the
Abduction and wanted to use them to leave Colombia. The Board concluded that
these explanations were not satisfactory.
Vacation
c.
The Applicants did spend their planned two week
holiday in New York City and then came to Canada. They explained their delay in
coming to Canada by saying that adverse weather prevented them from travelling
to the Canadian border. There was no proof to support this explanation and it
was rejected.
Reporting to
Police
d.
The principal applicant failed to report the
Abduction to police because he said he was afraid that FARC had infiltrated the
police and would make good on its threat to kill him if he reported. Yet he
said he reported the Abduction to the police three days before he left Colombia. At this time, although he and his wife were in hiding, there was still the
possibility that the FARC would find and kill them. The Board felt that if he
had truly been afraid, the principal applicant would have reported to the
police only after he left Colombia.
Port of Entry
Notes
e.
During his interview at the port of entry the
principal applicant advised the officer that at the end of June 2010 he had
received calls from the FARC offering him a job. However, in his amended PIF
narrative, he described the callers as being unknown. Further, the port of entry
notes show that the FARC threatened him with death at the time of the Abduction
and yet in the PIF narrative the death threat is not mentioned.
[3]
In my view these adverse conclusions about the
applicants’ credibility were reasonable.
Certification
[4]
No question was posed for certification.
Email this Content