Date: 20000626
Docket: IMM-2025-99
BETWEEN:
NIRMAL SINGH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAWSON J.
[1] The applicant, Nirmal Singh, is a forty-two year old citizen of India. He brings this application for judicial review in respect of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "CRDD"), dated March 23rd , 1999, wherein the applicant was found not to be a Convention refugee.
[2] The essential finding of the CRDD is contained in the following paragraph:
| The claimant was determined not to be credible based on above reasons and omissions in his PIF and, therefore, he was unable to prove that he has a well-founded fear of persecution. In the absence of credible testimony and lack of evidence, the claimant was unable to establish a link to his brother"s problems and disappearance due to AISSF [All India Sikh Student Federation] affiliation. |
[3] While the reasons of the CRDD in support of its decision and leading to its conclusion leave much to be desired in that they fail to deal with the substance of Mr. Singh"s claim, I am satisfied that the CRDD generally disbelieved Mr. Singh"s testimony.
[4] In its reasons the CRDD found Mr. Singh to be "vague and evasive" throughout his testimony. A review of the transcript of the hearing satisfies me that this was a conclusion reasonably open to the CRDD.
[5] The CRDD pointed to one direct contradiction in Mr. Singh"s testimony.
[6] The CRDD additionally supported its determination that Mr. Singh was not credible by specific examples. The CRDD assessed the applicant"s testimony in light of his answers on his Personal Information Form and his responses to questions from the CRDD on specific points of evidence, such as why he returned to India from the Seychelles (a signatory to the Geneva Convention); why he travelled on his legal documents when he left and returned to India in 1998; why he waited twenty days before leaving India after receipt of a Canadian visa; and, why he was able to obtain travel documents stamped by Indian authorities in 1998 without any problem.
[7] To the extent the CRDD found the applicant"s testimony to be implausible in certain respects, in Aguebor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.) Mr. Justice Décary 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. In Giron [(1992), 143 N.R. 238 (F.C.A.)], the Court merely observed that in the area of plausibility, the unreasonableness of a decision may be more palpable, and so more easily identifiable, since the account appears on the face of the record. In our opinion, Giron in no way reduces the burden that rests on an appellant, of showing that the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division could not reasonably have been drawn. |
[8] In addition to my conclusion that the CRDD"s findings of credibility were reasonably open to it on the evidence, I find that the applicant has not shown that the inferences drawn by the CRDD from the applicant"s testimony could not reasonably have been drawn.
[9] Therefore, the application for judicial review should be dismissed.
[10] With respect to certification of a question, counsel for the applicant proposed that two questions be certified:
| 1. Does the Immigration and Refugee Board have a duty to question the applicant about the important and relevant evidence, if the applicant"s counsel or the Refugee Claims Officer fail to question the applicant on such evidence. Failing to question the applicant about such evidence does the Immigration and Refugee Board have a duty, to at least refer to, if not to analyze such evidence in its decision? |
| 2. Can the Immigration and the Refugee Board decide the credibility of the applicant because it finds applicant"s testimony implausible in certain respects, while ignoring to examine applicant"s credibility on the main issues in the claim? |
[11] The respondent took the position that all of the issues raised by this application were based upon findings of fact and, therefore, did not raise any serious question of general importance. With respect to the questions proposed by the applicant, the respondent replied that the questions were not of general importance in that the answer to the proposed questions would depend upon the facts of a particular case.
[12] I accept the respondent"s position and do not certify any question.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
June 26, 2000