Date: 19981217
Docket: IMM-207-98
| BETWEEN: ARTHUR JHOLY NTHOUBANZA |
Applicant
| AND: THE MINISTER of CITIZENSHIP and IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
DENAULT J:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a CRDD decision whereby the applicant was denied refugee status. The applicant, a citizen of the République démocratique du Congo (RDC), formerly Zaïre, claimed refugee status on the ground of political opinion. He first claimed protection from the Mobutu regime but at the hearing, which took place after the fall of the Mobutu regime in May 1997, he made a claim for protection from the new government on the basis that pro-Mobutist forces now work for the Kabila regime.
[2] The Board found that, owing to the change in circumstances in his country of origin, the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. In fact, the Board found that there was no reasonable possibility that the applicant would be persecuted if he were to return to the RDC.
[3] The applicant submits that the Board misconstrued, misapprehended or ignored evidence relative to a) the disappearance of his brother, b) his political involvement prior to leaving Zaïre, and c) the fact that the applicant had a political opinion and was at risk as a member of the UDPS.
[4] Despite competent argumentation by counsel for the applicant, I am not convinced that the Refugee Division made a reviewable error in misconstruing or ignoring some of the evidence presented by the applicant.
[5] Having carefully reviewed the applicant's testimony, I am satisfied that it was not unreasonable for the Refugee Division to find the applicant's fear of Kabila's regime unfounded given that the applicant's belief that members of the former Mobutu regime had joined Kabila's secret service was speculative. Additionally, it was not unreasonable for the Refugee Division to find that there was no evidence that Kabila's forces were responsible for the disappearance of the applicant's brother : the only fact which can be extracted from the letter pertaining to the disappearance of the applicant's brother is that he disappeared in July 1997.
[6] With respect to the applicant's political involvement in Zaïre, counsel argued that the Refugee Division erred in fact when, failing to appreciate the political nature of the applicant's activities, it erroneously determined that the applicant had no interest in defending human rights before he fled Zaïre. In fact, the evidence only showed that the applicant was a member of a union in Zaïre. The Refugee Division did not find that there was no evidence of the applicant's political involvement but rather that there was no evidence that the applicant would reasonably be likely to become a human rights activist if he were returned to the RDC given that he had not been a human rights activist under the Mobutu regime.
[7] Finally, the applicant argues that the Refugee Division failed to address the issue that he had a political opinion and that he would be at risk as a member of the UDPS, the party opposing the Kabila government, if he was ordered to return to the RDC. First, there is no obligation on the Refugee Division, when providing reasons, to address every factual issue or to discuss every single piece of evidence which it had before it. In the case at bar, the Refugee Division arrived at a negative decision by finding that there was no reasonable possibility that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on political opinion. That determination, in my opinion, encompasses a predetermination (although not explicitly stated in the reasons) that this applicant's political opinion was not so strong or pressing that he could reasonably be expected to express it sooner or later if he were returned to the RDC.
[8] For the foregoing reasons, the within application for judicial review is dismissed.
[9] Counsel for the applicant has recommended the following question to be certified: "Is the oral evidence of the applicant evidence which must be commented upon by the Refugee Division, i. e. 1) that the applicant was active in the union; and 2) that the applicant was active in the UDPS in Canada?" In my view, this is not a serious question of general importance within the meaning of section 83 of the Immigration Act. Accordingly, no question will be certified.
O R D E R
This application is dismissed.
J.F.C.C.