Mekideche v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mekideche v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2003-11-20
Neutral citation
2003 FC 1352
File numbers
IMM-5088-02
Decision Content
Date: 20031120
Docket: IMM-5088-02
Citation: 2003 FC 1352
Between:
Abdelkrin MEKIDECHE
Latifa MEKIDECHE
Farah MEKIDECHE
Reda MEKIDECHE
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 of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB) dated September 26, 2002, 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.
[2] Abdelkrin Mekideche, the principal applicant (the applicant), is 52 years old. He is the husband of Latifa Mekideche and the father of Reda, 21 years old, and Farah, 15 years old. They are all citizens of Algeria.
[3] The claims of the two children and their mother are based on the claim of the applicant who alleges that he has a well-founded fear of persecution by Islamic terrorist groups because of his political opinions. The applicant also alleges that he is a person in need of protection because his life will be in danger if he returns to Algeria.
[4] The IRB refused to find that the applicants were refugees or persons in need of protection on the basis that the testimony of the applicant and his wife was not credible because of discrepancies between the testimony and the information contained in their Personal Information Form (PIF) and because the fear of persecution was unlikely.
[5] As a general rule, testimony is presumed to be true unless there are reasons to doubt its truthfulness. In this case, the IRB found many discrepancies between the testimony of the applicants and the information found in the PIF, such as discrepancies regarding the identity of the persecuting officer and the reason for the persecution, the reason for the assassination of the applicant's brother and the moving date. A careful review of the impugned decision and the transcripts of the hearing support my observation that the IRB considered the applicants' explanations but found that they were insufficient. Further, the IRB clearly explains the basis for its decision in its reasons. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that the panel relied on these inconsistencies and contradictions to support its findings that the applicants were not credible.
[6] In order to determine that the applicants' reasonable fear of persecution was not credible the IRB also relied on certain improbabilities such as vacations abroad, the refusal of the employer's offer to transfer, the discrepancies about the passports and finally the fact that the applicant's parents and a brother still live in the targeted house despite the threats. This reasonable assessment of the truthfulness of the story is one of the powers as well as one of the obligations of the IRB (Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)).
[7] As for the allegation regarding the panel's bias - it is unfounded.
[8] In fact, according to the applicants, the officer at the hearing asked his questions in an incredulous tone and behaved in a harassing manner toward them. This is not apparent in the transcript and there is no basis for finding that the officer asked his questions in a hostile manner equivalent to the situation in De Leon v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (June 9, 2000),
IMM-6251-98.
[9] With respect to the incident where the board member called Louise Poirier, the applicant's former counsel, to order, the transcript of the hearing clearly indicates some interruptions and behaviour by this counsel that were blatantly disrespectful, discourteous and sometimes childish. The conduct of the panel under the circumstances, however, seems to have been impeccable such that it successfully fulfilled its obligation to simply maintain order and decorum. To support these observations, I refer inter alia to excerpts from the transcript of the hearing appearing at pages 261 to 265, 367 and 368, 373 to 375, at page 412, at pages 421 to 423, at page 429 and at page 453 of the tribunal record. In my opinion, an informed person having thought the matter through, viewing it realistically and practically, could not definitely find that the panel demonstrated bias towards the applicants (see Committee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, at page 394).
[10] In light of the evidence, I am far from being satisfied that the IRB made an error warranting the intervention of this Court.
[11] Therefore, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 20, 2003
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5088-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: Abdelkrin MEKIDECHE, Latifa MEKIDECHE, Farah MEKIDECHE, Reda MEKIDECHE v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 9, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: November 20, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Noël St-Pierre FOR THE APPLICANTS
Lucie St-Pierre FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Noël St-Pierre FOR THE APPLICANTS
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario