Date: 19990929
Docket: IMM-6436-98
Ottawa, Ontario, this 29th day of September, 1999
Present : The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between :
BALJIT SINGH BENIPAL, domiciled and residing at
7260 Durocher, Apartment 11,
Montreal, Quebec, H3N 1Z9,
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.
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated November 9, 1998, in which it determined the applicant was not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
JUDGE
Date: 19990929
Docket: IMM-6436-98
Between :
BALJIT SINGH BENIPAL, domiciled and residing at
7260 Durocher, Apartment 11,
Montreal, Quebec, H3N 1Z9,
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 November 9, 1998, in which the Board determined he was not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act (the Act) and further that, pursuant to subsection 69.1(9.1) of the Act, there was no credible basis for his claim.
[2] It appears that the Board rejected the applicant's claim for the reason that it did not find him to be credible. The following excerpt is found at pages 2 and 3 of the decision:
| The claimant presented several documents in support of his claim. The authenticity of these documents is dependent on the credibility of the claimant, given that he provided the documents. The panel does not find the claimant to be credible and thus gives no probative value to the documents. The relevance of the letter from Dr. Kornacki is negated by the general lack of credibility of the claimant. |
| [. . .] |
| The panel found the claimant to be evasive when asked about general information about the PHRO. He knew nothing about the organization. The panel does not believe that two adult brothers lived together in the same home and in four years never spoke about what they did. . . . |
| The panel concluded that the claimant fabricated the story about his brother. Furthermore, the panel does not believe that two adult brothers living in the same home, one allegedly being an active member of an organization which was active in the area of human rights, never spoke about it. He knew next to nothing about the organization with which he alleges he met with on more than one occasion. The panel does not find this credible. |
[3] The applicant argues that the Board erred in its examination of the evidence and in finding the applicant not to be credible.
[4] The Federal Court of Appeal in Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315, held that the tribunal is in the best position to evaluate a claimant's credibility. The same Court, in Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, also held that the tribunal's perception that the claimant is not credible effectively amounts to a finding that there is no credible evidence on which it could allow his or her claim for refugee status. Finally, in Bustillo v. M.E.I. (November 4, 1993), A-948-92, my colleague Denault J. expressed the following view:
| . . . As the Court held in Larue v. M.E.I. (13 May 1993), Court file no. 92-A-6666 (F.C.A.), even if some findings, taken in isolation, may seem questionable, the question to be determined by the Court is whether the evidence, taken as a whole allowed the tribunal to make the finding it did regarding the applicant's credibility. As long as the tribunal had before it evidence to support its findings, the Court is not to interfere. In this case, while the tribunal may have made some minor errors, it is not clear from the reasons as a whole that a basis has been shown for intervening in the tribunal's decision. As Mr. Justice Marceau stated in M.E.I. v. Lesanu (17 September 1993), Court file no. A-481-92 (F.C.A.): |
| Cette Cour a répété à maintes reprises que les motifs donnés par la Section du statut au soutien de sa conclusion dans un cas d'espèce ne pouvaient ni ne devaient faire l'objet d'une analyse "microscopique" ou même simplement rigoureuse. Des gaucheries de langage ou d'expression sont souvent compréhensibles, et elles doivent rester sans conséquence, pourvu qu'à la lecture d'ensemble de la décision on puisse voir que les membres du tribunal ne se sont pas fourvoyés sur leur rôle ou sur la façon de le remplir. |
| (My emphasis.) |
[5] Applying the above principles to the present case, I do not consider that the applicant has shown that the evidence as a whole did not allow the Board to make the finding it did concerning his credibility. Furthermore, it was open to the Board to reject the applicant's medical evidence, given that the facts underlying the report of Dr. Kornacki were found not to be credible (see Danailov v. M.E.I. (October 6, 1993), T-273-93). Finally, I am satisfied that the inferences drawn by that specialized tribunal could reasonably have been drawn (Aguebor, supra).
[6] Accordingly, the application must be dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 29, 1999