Auguste v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Auguste v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2009-10-28
Neutral citation
2009 FC 1099
File numbers
IMM-71-09
Decision Content
Federal Court
Cour fédérale
Date: 20091028
Docket: IMM-71-09
Citation: 2009 FC 1099
Montréal, Quebec, October 28, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
CLERNELIA-MARIE AUGUSTE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application for judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act) of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (panel) rendered by Member Michael Hamelin on March 12, 2009, determining that the applicant, Clernelia-Marie Auguste, is not a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the Act or a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Act.
[2] The panel’s dismissal of the claim is essentially based on the absence of a subjective fear, on a lack of credibility and on the generalized risk faced by all citizens of Haiti.
[3] The applicant arrived in Canada on November 5, 2003, armed with a visa valid until 2004. She did not claim refugee protection until August 14, 2007.
[4] The panel found a number of inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the applicant in her written testimony (statement at port of entry, personal information form) and in that provided at the hearing, in particular, the absence of any link between her persecution and the murder of her brother-in-law in 2003. Furthermore, the panel noted the lack of documents confirming this murder. Also taken into account was the nearly four-year time period it took the applicant to file her claim.
[5] In conclusion, the panel found that the applicant was not at a greater risk than other Haitian citizens with regard to crimes such as robbery or kidnapping.
[6] Since Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the panel’s findings as to the credibility of a refugee claimant continue to be subject to deference by the Court and are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness (Dunsmuir, at paragraphs 55, 57, 62 and 64; see also Lin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 698, [2008] F.C.J. No. 888 (QL) at paragraph 11). Consequently, the Court will only intervene if the decision does not fall within the range of possible and acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law (Dunsmuir, at paragraph 47).
[7] After analyzing the panel’s decision as well as the parties’ written submissions, the Court cannot find that the panel’s decision is unreasonable. In fact, the inconsistencies raised are supported by the evidence. It was entirely reasonable for the panel to take into account the considerable length of time between the applicant’s arrival in Canada and her application for refugee protection.
[8] The reasons set out in the decision regarding the lack of credibility are clear and precise. The Court’s intervention is not warranted in any way.
[9] No question was proposed for certification and none arises from this case.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review be dismissed. No question is certified.
‘‘Michel Beaudry’’
Judge
Certified true translation
Sebastian Desbarats, Translator
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-71-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: CLERNELIA-MARIE AUGUSTE
and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 27, 2009
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: BEAUDRY J.
DATED: October 28, 2009
APPEARANCES:
Serge Silawo
FOR THE APPLICANT
Suzanne Trudel
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Serge Silawo
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT