Date: 19990927
Docket: IMM-6415-98
BETWEEN:
ACHARTEE MONINDRA
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a Convention Refugee Determination Division decision dated October 28, 1998. The Board member determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
FACTS
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He is a member of the Hindu minority in Bangladesh. He says he fears persecution in the event of return to Bangladesh. He maintains that in the past, his support for Hindu minority rights resulted in persecution by Muslim fundamentalists.
[3] The applicant claims that since 1990, he has belonged to the Hindu-Buddhist Christian Unity Council (HBCUC), an advocacy group for the rights of minority religions. He says he was also a member of the executive of his Hindu congregation.
[4] The applicant claims he spoke out and took part in demonstrations against Muslim fundamentalist violence in his community. He says he was threatened and attacked repeatedly by Muslim fundamentalists in his community.
[5] The applicant states that on February 1, 1998, the fundamentalists disrupted a religious ceremony in which he was participating. He added that they attacked his home and threatened to kill him. He therefore took refuge in Sylhet and then Dhaka.
[6] He claims he sought police protection several times; he fears persecution should he have to go back to Bangladesh.
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPLICANT
[7] The applicant argues the panel erred in finding him not credible owing to inconsistencies between his testimony and written statement.
[8] The applicant argues the panel did not follow the tests set out in the case law concerning the objective assessment of a claimant's credibility.
[9] The applicant also submits that the panel made patently unreasonable errors in the assessment of the documentary evidence in finding that the evidence showed no persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh and that the authorities protected the Hindu minority.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
[10] The respondent submits that the Refugee Division found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish that in the event of return to Bangladesh, the applicant had a reasonable possibility of persecution.
[11] The panel was of the opinion that the applicant was not credible and preferred the documentary evidence to the oral evidence.
ANALYSIS
[12] The panel's decision is primarily based on the finding that the applicant was not credible. In support of that finding, the panel cited inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony at the hearing.
[13] Although the inconsistencies the panel found were not numerous, the fact remains that the panel was in a much better position than this Court to assess the oral evidence before it.
[14] Decisions on such cases are many and clear. In Sagarika Chandrakanthi Perera v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, September 19, 1995 (IMM-3754-94) at page 3, the Honourable Associate Chief Justice Jerome stated:
Questions of credibility and weight of evidence are within the jurisdiction of the Refugee Division as the trier of fact in respect of Convention refugee claims. When a tribunal's impugned finding relates to credibility, the Court will be reluctant to interfere with that finding, given the tribunal's opportunity and ability to assess the witness, her demeanour, frankness, readiness to answer, coherence and consistency, in oral testimony before it.
[15] In Aguebor v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315, at p. 316 (F.C.A.), again regarding credibility, Décary J.A. stated:
There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review.
[16] With respect to the assessment of the documentary evidence, in my view it is clear that the panel examined it, and it was not unreasonable for the panel to prefer the documentary evidence to the oral evidence before it, as established by the Federal Court of Appeal in Ting Yu Zhou v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, July 18, 1994 (A-492-91):
We are not persuaded that the Refugee Division made any error that would warrant our interference. The material relied on by the Board was properly adduced as evidence. The Board is entitled to rely on documentary evidence in preference to that of the claimant. There is no general obligation on the Board to point out specifically any and all items of documentary evidence on which it might rely.
[17] In my view, the panel was of the opinion that the applicant's account was not credible and gave greater weight to the documentary evidence than to his testimony.
[18] In conclusion, the panel was of the opinion that the applicant would not have a reasonable possibility of persecution in the event of return to Bangladesh.
[19] Based on the evidence before it, it was not unreasonable for the panel to make that finding.
[20] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[21] Neither party suggested a question for certification.
Pierre Blais Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 27, 1999
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-6415-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: ACHARTEE MONINDRA
v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE BLAIS J.
DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1999
APPEARANCES:
ALAIN JOFFE FOR THE APPLICANT
STEVE BELL FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
ALAIN JOFFE FOR THE APPLICANT
STEVE BELL
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada