Date: 20040318
Docket: IMM-4153-03
Citation: 2004 FC 395
BETWEEN:
LUIS ENRIQUE CASTILLO INTI
GIULIANA GLENDA MENDOZA DE CASTILLO
JIMENA LUCIA CASTILLO MENDOZA
LUCIANA ALEJANDA CASTILLO MENDOZA
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB), dated May 13, 2003, that the applicant and his dependants are not Convention refugees or " persons in need of protection" within the meaning of sections 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act).
[2] Luis Enrique Castillo Inti (the applicant), his wife, Giuliana Glenda Mendoza de Castillo, and their minor children, Jimena Lucia and Luciana Alejandra (the dependants) are citizens of Peru. The applicant alleges that he fears persecution on the basis of his political opinion and he also claims to be a " person in need of protection" because he would be subject to a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Peru.
[3] The IRB found that the applicant and his dependants are not Convention refugees or "persons in need of protection" because the applicant was not credible, because he had not established that the State was unable to protect him, and because his fear was unrelated to any of the five grounds listed in the Convention.
[4] In Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the panel's perception that an applicant is not a credible witness can amount to a finding that there is no credible evidence on which the claim could be based. In this case, the IRB determined that the applicants' story was not credible because this story contained many omissions, implausibilities and inconsistencies. Moreover, the IRB assigned little probative value to documents submitted by the applicant, because they included inconsistencies. A review of the record and, especially, the transcripts of the hearing, shows that the IRB considered the applicant's explanations but that it found that they were inadequate. In my view, the panel was entirely justified in taking all of these omissions, implausibilities and inconsistencies into consideration in assessing the applicant's credibility (Parnian v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1995), 96 F.T.R. 142).
[5] With respect to the applicant's allegation to the effect that the IRB only decided on his credibility, without proceeding to an analysis of the risks of returning under the other provisions of the Act, keep in mind that the applicant's story was found to be not credible. Accordingly, it was not patently unreasonable for the IRB to dismiss his claim under both sections 96 and 97 of the Act.
[6] The IRB also determined that the applicant had not established that the Peruvian State was not able to protect him. This finding, while determinative, was not the subject of dispute or argument in the applicant's written memorandum.
[7] Finally, the applicant claims to fear persecution by individuals involved in drugs in Peru. However, the IRB found that the applicant was, rather, a victim of criminal acts, which has no connection with any of the grounds of the Convention. In fact, it is well established that individuals who are victims of corruption and crime who do not establish another connection with one of the grounds of the Convention are not Convention refugees (see Sokolov v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1321 (F.C.T.D.) (QL) and Calero v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1159 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)).
[8] For all of these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 18, 2004
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4153-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: LUIS ENRIQUE CASTILLO INTI, GIULIANA GLENDA MENDOZA DE CASTILLO, JIMENA LUCIA CASTILLO MENDOZA, LUCIANA ALEJANDA CASTILLO MENDOZA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 17, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Pinard J.
DATE OF REASONS: March 18, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Michelle Langelier FOR THE APPLICANTS
Ian Demers FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michelle Langelier FOR THE APPLICANTS
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario