Docket:
IMM-12488-12
Citation: 2013 FC 1240
Ottawa, Ontario, December 10,
2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
HAMID KOROM MAHAMAT
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The core allegation of torture for a period of
eight months is not even specified in the Personal Information Form [PIF] of
the Applicant. As that central issue for the request for refugee status, is
not, at all, the very focus of any discussion in the written narrative, the
Applicant cannot then expect a reasonable outcome to be otherwise than negative
as to his request for refugee status.
[2]
The Refugee Protection Division of the
Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB] is a first-instance decision-maker of fact;
it is a specialized tribunal and has the jurisdiction to determine issues of
plausibility. On issues of plausibility, intervention by this Court is only
warranted when the IRB draws unreasonable inferences (Aguebor v Canada
(Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993) 160 NR 315 (FCA); Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1
SCR 339)
[3]
This decision is in response to an application
for judicial review from the IRB which decided that the Applicant is not a
Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
[4]
The Applicant, a citizen of Chad, alleged he was arrested, detained and beaten due to his uncle’s suspected activities of
spiritually guiding and assisting rebels implicated in an aborted coup in Chad in February of 2008.
[5]
The Applicant’s PIF demonstrated an absence of
significant allegations in respect to the Applicant’s torture that had been
raised outside of the PIF. Such an absence from the PIF, itself, can be pivotal
to an adverse credibility determination.
[6]
In addition, the aftermath to the torture and
follow-up in respect to the Applicant’s physical safety led to even greater doubts
in the tribunal’s opinion in regard to the allegations specified.
[7]
Also, the Applicant’s narrative in respect of
his departure from Chad presented credibility issues that were considered to
lack inherent logic in view of the very context of the narrative (Khosa,
above).
[8]
Rule 37(3) of the IRPA, in and of itself,
could have given the IRB a valid reason to reject evidence on the basis that a
document which could have been presented at a hearing, was not.
[9]
An adverse inference, although inconclusive, in
and of itself, had also been drawn by the IRB in respect of the Applicant’s
failure to claim protection at the first opportunity (Bello v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 70 ACWS (3d) 888, [1997]
FCJ No 446 (QL/Lexis) (TD)).
[10]
The medical document, even if disclosed at the
appropriate time, would not have set aside significant outstanding credibility
concerns as they were determined to be irreconcilable in view of the narrative
as a whole (Aguebor, above).
[11]
For all of the above reasons, the Applicant’s application
for judicial review is dismissed.
Email this Content