Jaber v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court headnote
Jaber v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-09-23 Neutral citation 2003 FC 1065 File numbers IMM-2099-02 Decision Content Date: 20030923 Docket: IMM-2099-02 Citation: 2003 FC 1065 Between: AMMAR JABER Applicant - and - THE 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 Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB), dated April 16, 2002, ruling that the applicant is not a Convention refugee according to the definition provided in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2. [2] The applicant is a citizen of Iraq. He alleges that he has a well-founded fear of persecution by the Iraqi authorities because of his religion and his perceived political opinion given his refusal to become a member of the Baath party. [3] The applicant argues that the IRB was too quick to rule that he had failed to demonstrate in a credible and trustworthy way that he had a reasonable fear of persecution because of perceived political opinions and that it erred in its assessment of the facts. Concerning credibility, it is not the job of this Court to substitute itself for the IRB unless the applicant can demonstrate that it based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Cou…
Read full judgment
Jaber v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-09-23 Neutral citation 2003 FC 1065 File numbers IMM-2099-02 Decision Content Date: 20030923 Docket: IMM-2099-02 Citation: 2003 FC 1065 Between: AMMAR JABER Applicant - and - THE 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 Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB), dated April 16, 2002, ruling that the applicant is not a Convention refugee according to the definition provided in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2. [2] The applicant is a citizen of Iraq. He alleges that he has a well-founded fear of persecution by the Iraqi authorities because of his religion and his perceived political opinion given his refusal to become a member of the Baath party. [3] The applicant argues that the IRB was too quick to rule that he had failed to demonstrate in a credible and trustworthy way that he had a reasonable fear of persecution because of perceived political opinions and that it erred in its assessment of the facts. Concerning credibility, it is not the job of this Court to substitute itself for the IRB unless the applicant can demonstrate that it based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7). It has been held that the IRB is a specialized tribunal empowered to assess the plausibility and credibility of testimony so long as the inferences it draws are not unreasonable (Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and its reasons are stated in a clear and comprehensible way (Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 15 Imm.L.R. (2d) 199 (F.C.A.)). [4] The applicant is right when he says that testimony is presumed to be true unless there are reasons to doubt it. In this case, however, the IRB identified such reasons, and I do not consider that it committed any patently unreasonable error in doing so. [5] Indeed, judging from the transcript, it seems to me that the IRB correctly noted a number of inconsistencies and improbabilities in the applicant's testimony that he was unable to justify. The inconsistencies between the Personal Information Form and the testimony may not be sufficient in themselves to justify a finding of lack of credibility, but when combined with the improbability of the applicant's story concerning his family's lifestyle and his father's work, as well as the IRB's impressions of the applicant's behaviour and attitude, the panel could reasonably make the findings it did. [6] The applicant submits that the IRB made a selective reading of the documentary evidence in relation to the treatment of non-members of the Baath party or those who refuse to join it. However, he does not provide any serious example in this regard. Presumably, therefore, the IRB did take into account all of the documents that were before it (Hassan v. M.E.I. (1992), 147 N.R. 317, at page 318 (F.C.A.)). [7] Lastly, the applicant submits that there is no evidence to support the finding that the applicant is a member of the Baath party. Although this finding by the panel is not supported by any specific evidence, and it is in fact a supposition on its part, this supposition was neither central to nor determinative of the final decision. [8] For all of these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. "Yvon Pinard" Judge OTTAWA, ONTARIO September 23, 2003 Certified true translation Suzanne Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2099-02 STYLE: AMMAR JABER v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: August 12, 2003 REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD DATED: September 23, 2003 APPEARANCES: Lenya Kalepdjian FOR THE APPLICANT Thi My Dung Tran FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Lenya Kalepdjian FOR THE APPLICANT Montréal, Quebec Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca