Date: 20041027
Docket: IMM-33-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1509
Ottawa, Ontario, October 27, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
TOZIN BILANDI MAYUMA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This in an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration Refugee Board (Board) dated December 8, 2003, where the Board determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. The applicant asks that the decision of the Board be set aside pursuant to s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, and that the claim be referred back for redetermination.
ISSUE
[2] Did the Board err in assessing the applicant's credibility?
[3] For the following reasons, I answer this question in the negative and will dismiss this application.
BACKGROUND
[4] The applicant claims he is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He submits to being a first year law school student at the University of Kinshasa (UNIKIN). He alleges that he fears persecution because of his association to a student association named "Mouvement des jeunes démocrates congolais" (MJDC) and his political opinion. He says that his life is in danger and that he risks cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he was to return to his country.
CONTESTED DECISION
[5] The Board concluded that the applicant had not established his identity and found that his story was not credible. Therefore, it dismissed the applicant's claim.
[6] The applicant submitted three documents in order to establish his identity. He filed a birth attestation, an attestation as to the loss of identity documents and a student card. The Board concluded that the birth attestation was not reliable since the stamp, which all official documents from DRC must have, had irregularities.
[7] The Board also decided to grant the attestation of loss of identity documents and the student card no probative value since the applicant's story regarding those two pieces of evidence was not credible.
[8] Moreover, the Board noted a number of implausibilities in the applicant's testimony and inconsistencies between his port of entry document and his Personal Information Form (PIF). In addition, the Board concluded that the applicant's actions were not compatible with someone who really fears for his life. In fact, the applicant never applied for asylum while he was in France.
ANALYSIS
[9] The applicable standard of review in instances concerning the assessment of the applicant's identity is patent unreasonableness: Gasparyan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1103 (T.D.) (QL), at paragraph 6 and Umba v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 17 (T.D.) (QL) at paragraph 55:
The appropriate standard of reviewing the Refugee Division's assessment of identity documents is patent unreasonableness. [...] The panel had first-hand access to the identity documents and the testimony of the applicants, and also possesses a high level of expertise in this area.
[10] The standard of review in cases involving credibility findings, which are factual issues, is also patent unreasonableness.
Identity
[11] It is settled law that the applicant bears the onus of establishing his identity (Harakrishna v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 810 (T.D.) (QL) at paragraph 9). It was established by documentary evidence, that since June 1998, every official document in DRC had to be paid for with "franc congolais" (FC). Confirmation of such a payment is proven by a stamp with the mention "FC" on every document. However, in the present case, the attestation of birth was stamped with"FF" in reference to the "franc français", which is not acceptable in DRC since 1998. Accordingly, I believe that the Board did not make a patently unreasonable error in questioning the authenticity of the birth attestation.
[12] The Board concluded that no weight should be granted to the student card. The reasons given are also not patently unreasonable due to the applicant's insufficient explanations concerning the year it was obtained and the time the applicant had started his studies.
Credibility
[13] Even though the Board believed that the applicant had not met his burden of proof in establishing his identity, it still considered the applicant's claim in order to determine if he was a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Nevertheless, it concluded that the applicant's story was not credible because of implausibilities in the way he left his country.
[14] The applicant did not file his passport from DRC which he used to travel from Congo-Brazzaville to France. Since, his identity was not properly established, the Board cited Elazi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 212 (T.D.) (QL). I find that it was in the purview of the Board to do so.
[15] The applicant was unable to name courses he had taken in law school and what he learned. The Board concluded negatively on the applicant's credibility. I am not satisfied that the applicant demonstrated a reviewable error here.
[16] Finally, in the case at hand, the applicant resided in France for four months without claiming asylum. Delays in seeking asylum without serious reasons negate evidence of a subjective fear of persecution and it is open to the Board to impugn the credibility of claimants on that basis (Dcruze v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 987 (T.D.)(QL), at paragraph 6).
[17] I cannot conclude that the Board rendered a decision that was made in a perverse, capricious manner or without regard to the evidence before it.
[18] The parties had the opportunity to submit a serious question of general importance and declined to do so. No such question arises here.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified.
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-33-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: TOZIN BILANDI MAYUMA v.
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 14, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER THE HONOURABLE
AND ORDER BY: MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
DATED: October 27, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Jeffrey Platt FOR THE APPLICANT
Marie-Claude Paquette FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jeffrey Platt
Montreal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris A. Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montreal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT