Date: 20000225
Docket: IMM-1800-99
Between :
MANMOHAN SINGH WALIA, domiciled and residing at
49 Silver Stone Dr., apartment 805, Etobicoke, Ontario, M9V 3G2,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION, c/o Justice Department,
Guy Favreau Complex, 200 West René-Lévesque, East Tower,
5th Floor, Montreal, Quebec, H2Z 1X4,
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated March 16, 1999, in which the Board determined that he was not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act.
[2] The Board found that the applicant was not credible and that his conduct was incompatible with the conduct of someone who fears persecution.
[3] First, the Board concluded that the applicant's testimony did not reflect knowledge of the content of his first response to question 37 of his Personal Information Form (PIF). Although the applicant claimed to have provided this information, he could neither elaborate on it nor answer questions about Amnesty International.
[4] The Board also found discrepancies between the applicant's second response to question 37 and his testimony. Because of the following contradictions, the Board did not believe the applicant's story about the militants:
| (i) The applicant wrote that the militants first visited his store in January, but testified that their first visit was in March. When alerted to this discrepancy, the applicant said that the visit took place in January. |
| (ii) The applicant wrote that the militants returned "after 5-6 days" and demanded food again, but testified that they returned "three-four weeks" later. When confronted with this contradiction, the applicant claimed that the dates were approximate and that he doesn't recall dates. |
| (iii) The applicant wrote that he told his father about the militants after their first visit, but testified that he told his father "after the second visit". The applicant explained this inconsistency by saying that he did not tell his father after the first visit because he did not want rumours to spread. |
| (iv) The applicant wrote that when he was arrested two weeks after the militants' second visit, the police accused him of storing weapons and ammunition and/or having links with the All India Sikhs Student Federation (AISSF). However, the applicant testified that he was accused of providing food and shelter to militants. When counsel quoted his reference to the AISSF, the applicant explained that he omitted to mention it because he does not consider it a terrorist organization. |
| (v) The applicant did not mention in his PIF that, after his release in July 1997, he was required to report to the police on the fifteenth of every month. The applicant claimed that he forgot to mention this to the interpreter. |
[5] Finally, the Board concluded that the applicant's conduct after his release in July 1997 was incompatible with the conduct of someone who fears persecution. Specifically, he testified that although the police inquired about him, he visited his family on a number of occasions and stayed with his grandmother. He also testified that he left India using his own passport.
[6] The issue of credibility is squarely within the Refugee Division's field of expertise. As long as the inferences drawn by the Board are not unreasonable, this Court cannot intervene in its decision. This principle was expressed by Mr. Justice Décary for the Federal Court of Appeal in Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315, at page 316:
| There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review. . . . |
[7] Without necessarily endorsing the Board's analysis of the facts in its entirety, I am of the opinion, upon reviewing the evidence, that the above implausibilities, inconsistencies and contradictions, taken as a whole, could allow it to reasonably conclude as it did. Consequently, as it is not for the Court to substitute its own decision for that of the tribunal, the application for judicial review must be dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 25, 2000