Bechir v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Bechir v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2004-05-20
Neutral citation
2004 FC 708
File numbers
IMM-2298-03
Decision Content
Date: 20040520
Docket: IMM-2298-03
Citation: 2004 FC 708
BETWEEN:
Adjabane ABDOULAYE BECHIR
APPLICANT
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB), dated February 27, 2003, that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person 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] Adjabane Abdoulaye Bechir (the applicant) is a citizen of the Republic of Chad alleging a well-founded fear of persecution based on his membership in the Ouaddaï tribe and because of his perceived association with the Renewed National Front of Chad. The applicant also alleges that he fears for his life.
[3] The IRB, finding that the applicant was not credible, determined that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a "person in need of protection":
Abdoulaye Bechir's claim for refugee protection is riddled with implausibilities, contradictions and omissions. It is obviously a story he made up from start to finish to deceive the panel in order to obtain permanent residence in Canada without going through the immigration process.
The claimant is a backdoor immigrant [note omitted]. Actions such as his contribute to undermining the IRB's credibility. The panel attaches no probative value to the documents submitted by the claimant because of his lack of credibility [note omitted].
[4] My review of the record confirms that, in effect, the implausibilities, contradictions and omissions referred to by the IRB are generally supported by the evidence. This Court cannot substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of this specialized tribunal whose inferences, in my view, were not unreasonable (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)). It is true that in its decision, the IRB does not expressly examine the documents submitted by the applicant, specifically his release certificate and his uncle's death certificate. However, it is important to keep in mind that there is a presumption to the effect that all of the evidence was considered by this panel, which is not bound to mention it all in its reasons (Florea v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598 (F.C.A.) (QL)). Further, in Rahaman v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] 3 F.C. 537, the Federal Court of Appeal stated the following:
[29] However, as MacGuigan J.A. acknowledged in Sheikh, supra, in fact the claimant's oral testimony will often be the only evidence linking the claimant to the alleged persecution and, in such cases, if the claimant is not found to be credible, there will be no credible or trustworthy evidence to support the claim. Because they are not claimant-specific, country reports alone are normally not a sufficient basis on which the Board can uphold a claim.
[5] In Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, referred to by the Federal Court of Appeal in the preceding citation, MacGuigan J.A., for the same Court, stated:
The concept of "credible evidence" is not, of course, the same as that of the credibility of the applicant, but it is obvious that where the only evidence before a tribunal linking the applicant to his claim is that of the applicant himself . . . , a tribunal's perception that he is not a credible witness effectively amounts to a finding that there is no credible evidence on which the second-level tribunal could allow his claim.
. . .
. . . In my view, what the first-level tribunal thereby incorporated in the evidence were the inferences as well as the facts. It was not necessary for the panel to take the position it did with respect to the inferences, but since it chose to integrate facts and inferences, I find myself unable to say that it erred in so doing, and in the result there was in its opinion no credible or trustworthy evidence on the basis of which a second-level panel could have come to a conclusion favourable to the applicant.
[6] With respect to the panel's finding that there was no credible basis, it is my opinion, based on the number and significance of the implausibilities, contradictions and omissions referred to by IRB and the resulting lack of subjective fear by the plaintiff, that it was not necessary to expressly examine the documents filed by the applicant, documents which, in themselves, have very little probative value in support of the applicant's claim.
[7] For all of these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 20, 2004
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2298-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: Adjabane ABDOULAYE BECHIR v.
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 21, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: Pinard J.
DATE OF REASONS: May 20, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Ella Lokrou FOR THE APPLICANT
Andrea Shahin FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Joseph W. Allen FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Date: 20040520
Docket: IMM-2298-03
Ottawa, Ontario, the 20th day of May 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
BETWEEN:
Adjabane ABDOULAYE BECHIR,
APPLICANT
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
RESPONDENT
ORDER
The application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, dated February 27, 2003, that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person 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, is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB