Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                                                                                                                              Date: 20011011

                                                                                                                                 Docket: IMM-6323-00

Ottawa, Ontario, the 11th day of October, 2001

Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard

Between:

Luciano Javier PAGNACCO

Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

ORDER

The application for judicial review of the decision rendered on November 20, 2000 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.

"Yvon Pinard"

                                  Judge

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.


Date: 20011011

                                      Docket: IMM-6323-00

Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1100

Between:

Luciano Javier PAGNACCO

Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

PINARD J.:

[1]         This is an application for judicial review of a decision rendered on November 20, 2000 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicant is not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.

[2]         The applicant is a citizen of Argentina. He alleges that he has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinions and his membership in a particular social group.


[3]         The Refugee Division concluded that because of his lack of credibility the applicant had not managed to establish that he has a reasonable belief of being persecuted, pursuant to the judgment in Adjei v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1989] 2 F.C. 680, (1989), 7 Imm. L.R. (2d) 169 (F.C.A.). The conclusion as to the applicant's lack of credibility is based on the following observations by the panel:

[Translation]

-          The claimant alleges that he was persecuted by his employer because of his attempts to form a union at the hotel, although the documentary evidence shows that the right to organize in a union is guaranteed by the Argentine Constitution and that anti-union measures are prohibited therein.

-           The claimant testified that the police had falsely accused him of carrying a war weapon, while in question 22 of his statement to the immigration officers he says there is no criminal charge pending against him in his country, and in question 20 of his Personal Information Form ("PIF") he says he is not being sought by the police or the authorities of his country.

-           The claimant testified that he feared the police because his attorney had laid a complaint against them. However, in his PIF, he writes nothing about any complaint laid by the attorney and he even admitted during the hearing that this attorney had dropped his case.

-           The claimant failed to mention in his PIF that he had learned from his father, on November 21, 1999, that the police were saying that if he returned to Argentina he would be "given a hard time". He also failed to note that the officers who arrested him on June 2, 1999 were policemen. Finally, he waited more than two months to claim refugee status in Canada, which undermines his credibility.


[4]         Now, as we know, when it comes to credibility and assessment of the facts, it is not the Court's job to substitute itself for the administrative tribunal where, as in this case, the applicant has failed to prove that the tribunal based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. Based on my review of the evidence, I can presume that the Refugee Division, as a specialized tribunal, did consider the evidence as a whole and could reasonably draw the conclusion that it did (see, for example, Hassan v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1992), 147 N.R. 317, at p. 318 and Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315, at pp. 316-17).

[5]         Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

"Yvon Pinard"

                                  Judge

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

October 11, 2001

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

TRIAL DIVISION

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET NO:                          IMM-6323-00

STYLE:                                       LUCIANO JAVIER PAGNACCO v. MCI

PLACE OF HEARING:            MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.

DATED:                                     OCTOBER 11, 2001

APPEARANCES:

Claude Pellerin                                                     FOR THE APPLICANT

Greg Moore                                                                       FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Claude Pellerin                                                     FOR THE APPLICANT

Montréal, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg                                                              FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.