Date: 19990913
Docket: IMM-5615-98
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD EMRAN HUSAIN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated August 4, 1998 wherein the Refugee Division determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
[2] The applicant raised two issues:
| a) Did the Board err in law and in fact by concluding that the applicant was not credible? |
| b) Did the Board consider all the evidence properly before it? |
APPLICANT"S ARGUMENTS
[3] The applicant suggests that the prevalence of violence in the political fabric of Bangladesh society cannot tarnish all the participants. It was unreasonable for the Board to impugn his credibility based purely on generalities within the documentary evidence, making his claim therefore implausible.
[4] The applicant suggests that even if he failed to supply more documentation as to his political career than a single letter signed by the Secretary General of the BNP dated January 5, 1998, the claimant may succeed on his testimony alone and is not expected to necessarily present documentary evidence to support his claim.
[5] The applicant submits that the Board"s analysis fails to support its finding that the applicant was not credible and necessitates the intervention of the Court. The applicant suggests that his explanations were reasonable and failed to support the Board"s conclusion impugning his credibility.
[6] With respect to the issue of the applicant having applied for visas from various countries including Canada and England, he stated that he wanted opinions since he was unsure what would happen after the visa would expire in the prospect of returning to Bangladesh. Applicant submits that his actions were reasonable as he was trying to examine all possibilities.
[7] With respect to the issue of the time spent in the United Kingdom and his decision not to seek asylum there, applicant stated that he was waiting to see how things were progressing in his country. He stated that he did not claim refugee status in the United Kingdom because he heard that it was difficult to obtain. He stated that his six weeks wait was attributable to the summer holiday airline traffic and that these explanations were reasonable under the circumstances.
[8] With respect to the applicant having failed to disclose that he no longer possessed that amount of money that he had indicated on his visa application, it is submitted that the lie in question was not fundamental in nature and should not form a central part of the analysis.
RESPONDENT"S ARGUMENTS
[9] The respondent suggests that with the evidence before the Board, it was not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
[10] The respondent suggests that being six weeks in the United Kingdom without asking for the refugee status could be interpreted that the applicant had no fear and the applicant also waited another six weeks in Canada before asking for the refugee status.
[11] The respondent suggests that with the evidence before the Board, it was reasonable to conclude that there was a lack of credibility of the applicant.
[12] Given that the applicant has had time to prepare his leaving from Bangladesh, the lack of documentation on his political activities was questionable in the circumstances because the applicant had a printing company doing jobs for the BNP and he could not provide any document that was printed for his party over the ten years he pretends having been active in politics.
ANALYSIS
[13] The Board"s decision is a very well documented decision. The Board has addressed a considerable amount of contradictions, inconsistencies, implausibilities and even lies concerning the claimant"s application for refugee status and this Court should review the said decision with great deference since the conclusions of the Board revolve around the credibility of the claimant.
[14] Counsel for the applicant attempted to provide justifications for these defects but none of them could demonstrate that the Board made a reviewable error either with respect to its finding of lack of credibility or with respect to the Board"s consideration of the evidence that was before it.
[15] The Board efficiently supported its conclusions and they appear to be reasonable to say the least.
[16] In my view, I do not see anything that could constitute reviewable errors which justify the intervention of this Court.
[17] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[18] Counsel for the applicant suggested a question to be certified:
| Within the assessment of credibility based upon political opinion, is it reasonable to impeach the credibility of a specific claimant in light of practices carried out by his political party generally? |
[19] Counsel for the respondent argued that the question was not determinative of appeal since the Board rejected the applicant"s claim based on lack of credibility and lack of well-founded fear. She noted that the Board made several findings and did not rely only on the sole finding that the applicant gave a falsified version of his party"s activities.
[20] She also raised the fact that the question was not of general importance. The impeachment on a credibility basis is a factual finding related to the particular facts of each case, thus the question does not "contemplate issues of broad significance or of general application".
[21] Only a serious question of general importance can be certified according to s. 83(1), the arguments raised by the respondent are convincing and therefore the question should not be certified.
Pierre Blais Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 13, 1999