Date: 19991008
Docket: IMM-6365-98
Ottawa, Ontario, the 8th day of October 1999
Present: the Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
MOHAND EL BACHIR DJOUADOU
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision dated October 27, 1998, by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, which determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
M. Iveson, LL.B.-LL.L.
Date: 19991008
Docket: IMM-6365-98
Between:
MOHAND EL BACHIR DJOUADOU
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated October 27, 1998, by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, which determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.
[2] This is another case in which the Refugee Division, having found that the claimant was not credible, did not believe his story, as indicated in the two excerpts from its decision which follow:
| [TRANSLATION] After assessing all of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant is not credible and is therefore not a "Convention refugee" for the following reasons: |
| . . . |
| Finally, after carefully assessing all of the evidence presented, there is no credible basis for the claimant"s allegations according to our assessment of the evidence. Based on the evidence adduced, the panel cannot conclude that if he were to return to his country of origin, the claimant would face a "reasonable chance" of persecution within the meaning of Adjei [[1989] 2 F.C. 680 (C.A.)]. We do not believe his story. He is not credible. |
[3] It is settled that with respect to credibility and the assessment of the evidence, this Court may not substitute its decision for that of such a tribunal, when, as in the instant case, the applicant-claimant failed to prove that the Refugee Division"s decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4)(d ) of the Federal Court Act). After reviewing the evidence, I am not persuaded that the inferences of the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, could not reasonably have been drawn (Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315).
[4] With respect to the applicant"s argument that the panel did not consider the documentary evidence concerning Algeria, I am of the view that insofar as the applicant"s testimony was found not to be credible, such an assessment was not required (Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.) , [1990] 3 F.C. 238).
[5] I find the applicant"s submission that the panel erred in placing too much emphasis on the persecution by government officials to be without merit. A reading of the whole decision clearly indicates that the Refugee Division also considered the applicant"s fear of the Islamists, but that as the information provided on this subject was quite limited, it did not believe the applicant.
[6] Neither is there merit to the argument based on the apprehension of bias on the part of the panel, as no real apprehension of bias is apparent in the transcript of the hearing and this issue was not raised at the earliest opportunity (Nartey v. M.E.I. (1994), 74 F.T.R. 74 and Del Moral et al. v. M.C.I. (June 4, 1994), IMM-2062-97).
[7] I also consider the applicant"s argument based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights premature, as the decision at issue is not the final stage in the applicant"s deportation (Barrera v. Canada (M.E.I.) , [1993] 2 F.C. 3).
[8] Finally, I am of the view that it was open to the Refugee Division to consider the delay in making a claim in this case, in light of the applicant"s long stay before doing so in the United States (Huerta v. M.E.I. (1993), 157 N.R. 225).
[9] For all of these reasons, the application for judicial review must be dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
October 8, 1999
Certified true translation
M. Iveson, LL.B.-LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-6365-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAND EL BACHIR DJOUADOU v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: September 8, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED October 8, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Stewart Istvanffy FOR THE APPLICANT
Martine Valois FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Stewart Istvanffy FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada