Date: 20021001
Docket: IMM-5677-01
Montreal, Quebec, October 1, 2002
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
IQBAL SINGH SIDHU
7002 Birman, apartment 1
Montréal, Quebec, H3N 2S7
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
c/o Justice Department, Guy Favreau Complex
200 West René-Lévesque, East Tower, 5th Floor
Montréal, Quebec, H2Z 1X4
Respondent
Application for judicial review of the decision rendered by the Immigration and Refugee Board on November 15, 2001, by Guy Lebel and Yves Boisrond in file MA0-08377.
(Section 82.1 of the Immigration Act)
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
|
|
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
Judge |
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
Date: 20021002
Docket: IMM-5677-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1031
BETWEEN:
IQBAL SINGH SIDHU
Plaintiff
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Refugee Division") on November 15, 2001, that the plaintiff is not a Convention refugee.
[2] The plaintiff is a citizen of India. He alleges that he had a valid fear of persecution for his alleged political opinions.
[3] The Refugee Division concluded that the plaintiff lacked credibility because his testimony was evasive and he adjusted his replies as questions were put to him.
[4] The standard of review for this type of question was very clearly explained in Boye v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1329, at para. 4:
The jurisprudence has established the standard of review in cases of this nature. To begin with, questions of credibility and weight of evidence are within the jurisdiction of the Refugee Division as the trier of facts in respect of Convention refugee claims. When a tribunal's impugned finding relates to the credibility of a witness, the Court will be reluctant to interfere with that finding, given the tribunal's opportunity and ability to assess the witness, his demeanour, frankness, readiness to answer, coherence and consistency in oral testimony before it. [My emphasis.]
[5] There is nothing in the plaintiff's claims to lead the Court to conclude that the Refugee Division made an error on this point. It is not the Court's function to substitute its own decision for that of the Refugee Division.
[6] As to the contradictions between the Personal Information Form (PIF) and the point of entry notes, it is well established that the notes made at the point of entry may be considered by the Refugee Division (see Al Dalawi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1224).
[7] The plaintiff further submitted that it was capricious for the Refugee Division to rely on the plaintiff's failure to mention his suffering and his period of hospitalization for 24 days.
[8] This Court has several times recognized that when a refugee status claimant fails to mention relevant and important facts in his PIF, the Refugee Division may legitimately conclude that those omissions impair his credibility (seeGrinevich v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 444). In the case at bar, the hospitalization was a significant occurrence and it was not capricious for the Refugee Division to note that it should have been mentioned.
[9] The Refugee Division also based its conclusion on the fact that no documents were filed to show that the plaintiff actually was hospitalized. It observed that the plaintiff had taken several steps to obtain documents corroborating the fact that he was arrested and tortured, and it would have been easy for him to obtain his hospital record.
[10] That conclusion by the Refugee Division was reasonable and does not justify the intervention of this Court.
[11] In light of the foregoing, I consider that the plaintiff did not establish that the Refugee Division made an error that could justify this Court's intervention. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
|
|
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
Judge |
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
October 2, 2002
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
|
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20021002
Docket: IMM-5677-01
Between:
IQBAL SINGH SIDHU
Plaintiff
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: IMM-5677-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: IQBAL SINGH SIDHU
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 1, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER: TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
DATE OF REASONS: October 2, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Jean-François Bertrand FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Mario Blanchard FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Bertrand, Deslauriers FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec