Muanza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration)

Muanza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-10-29
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 1121
File numbers
IMM-5920-01
Decision Content
Date: 20021029
Docket: IMM-5920-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1121
Toronto, Ontario, Tuesday, the 29th day of October, 2002
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
SANTOS MUANZA
ANDRÉ NGODI (GARCIA)
DIASONAMA MORENA
MARLENI MUANZA (a.k.a. MARLENE MUANZA)
HERMENIGILDO MUANZA
KIMBANZI MANUEL AMBROSIO
ANTONICA BELCACEN DOS SANTOS MUANZA
ALVARO MUANZA (a.k.a. ALVARO MORENO MUANZA)
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The principal applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the CRDD dated November 27, 2001 wherein it was determined that he was not a Convention refugee. I have not been persuaded that the CRDD committed any error in rejecting his claim.
[2] The CRDD found that credibility was determinative and referred to "overwhelming contradictions and implausibilities" in the evidence. The decision reads:
The Principal Claimant alleged that his problems arose
as a result of his leadership in organising a strike. It
appeared reasonable to the Panel to expect from the
Principal Claimant straightforward answers to questions
from his counsel, the Refugee Claim Officer (RCO) and
the Panel members. However, the Principal Claimant's
testimony was evasive, confused and confusing to say the
least throughout. He simply could not respond in a
spontaneous manner to any of the questions, and on many
occasions, his testimony was significantly conflicting. There
were several discrepancies between his written narrative
and his testimony.
[3] The panel then provides an extensive list of inconsistencies and implausibilities in the applicant's evidence.
[4] In his written submissions, the applicant's primary argument related to defective interpretation at the hearing. That argument was abandoned three days before the hearing of the application for judicial review. At the hearing, the applicant restricted his argument to four alleged errors regarding findings that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent. The respondent has noted seventeen additional inconsistencies that have not been challenged by the applicant and also notes that the applicant has not challenged any of the implausibility findings. I have carefully considered and reviewed the four allegations of error referred to by the applicant's counsel . While the panel may have erred with respect to one of its findings, I am not persuaded that it erred with respect to the other findings. Even if it had, those errors would not have affected the result since the evidence, in its totality, was found to be not credible.
[5] The CRDD determined clearly and unequivocally that the applicant was not credible and it gave detailed reasons for its finding. The CRDD is entitled to significant deference in this respect and the intervention of the court is not warranted. The application for judicial review is dismissed. Counsel did not suggest a question for certification. No question is certified.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified.
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-5920-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: SANTOS MUANZA ET AL
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
DATED: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2002
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Micheal Crane
For the Applicants
Ms. Kareena Wilding
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Micheal Crane
Barrister and Solicitor
166 Pearl St.
Suite 200
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 1L3
For the Applicants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent