Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2004-04-06
Neutral citation
2004 FC 510
File numbers
IMM-4761-03
Decision Content
Date: 20040406
Docket: IMM-4761-03
Citation: 2004 FC 510
BETWEEN:
SARBJEET SINGH GILL, residing at
33 Maria, LaSalle, Quebec, H8R 3Z7,
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] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated May 28, 2003, wherein the Board found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Sarbjeet Singh Gill (the applicant) is a citizen of India who alleges a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the Indian police by reason of imputed political opinions.
[3] The Board found that the applicant was not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" because it found that his claim was not credible.
[4] In this case, the Board seriously questioned the applicant's allegations pertaining to the circumstances in which his father is said to have been killed. Indeed, the Board's decision is solidly based on factual findings of inconsistency in the applicant's story. For example, the applicant contradicted himself with respect to the date on which the family received the father's body. In response to the Board's questions, the applicant could provide no satisfactory explanation for these inconsistencies. Moreover, the applicant contradicted himself with respect to the seized truck. At one point, the applicant says that the truck had never been recovered and later the applicant testified that the truck had been recovered near Bangalore. Again, the applicant failed to provide any credible explanation for these inconsistencies. The Board also noted the applicant's unfamiliarity with the facts surrounding his allegations as well as his inability to provide any details to expand upon his claim in order to find that the applicant was not credible. Finally, the Board attributed no probative value to most of the documents submitted because of the many inconsistencies they contained. All of the above inconsistencies noted by the Board were central to the applicant's claim because they put into question the very basis of his fear of persecution; that is, they put into question the facts surrounding his father's death and his brother's disappearance. The Board clearly explained its reasons for doubting the applicant's credibility on the basis of these discrepancies and therefore I am convinced that the Board acted reasonably in concluding that the applicant was not credible and that his claim for refugee status should be rejected.
[5] The applicant submits that the errors and the inconsistencies in his claim resulted from an inherent obstacle in refugee claims, that of interpretation. In Mohammadian v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000] 3 F.C. 371, Pelletier J., as he then was, made the following comments regarding an applicant's allegation that the interpretation during the hearing, or any other preliminary procedure, was flawed:
[27] . . . complaints about the quality of interpretation must be made at the first opportunity, that is, before the CRDD, in those cases where it is reasonable to expect that a complaint be made.
[28] It will be a question of fact in each case whether it is reasonable to expect a complaint to be made. If the interpreter is having difficulty speaking the applicant's own language and being understood by him, this is clearly a matter which should be raised at the first opportunity. On the other hand, if the errors are in the language of the hearing, which the applicant does not understand, then prior complaint may not be a reasonable expectation.
[6] In this case, the translation issue should have been raised before the Board. During his testimony, the Board confronted the applicant with the inconsistencies of his story and he was unable to provide a consistent and credible answer. More important, the applicant did not raise the interpretation issue before the Board when he was confronted with the inconsistencies themselves. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that the applicant should have made a complaint before the Board during his hearing and the applicant cannot now rely on this allegation in order to explain the many inconsistencies in his claim.
[7] For the reasons outlined above, I am of the opinion that the Board committed no patently unreasonable error in its disposition of this case. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 6, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4761-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SARBJEET SINGH GILL v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 19, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: April 6, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Me Jean-François Bertrand FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Daniel Latulippe FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Bertrand Deslauriers FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario