Date: 20000823
Docket: IMM-3611-99
BETWEEN:
JASVIR SINGH MANGAT
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HANSEN J.
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") dated July 5, 1999 in which it determined the applicant is not a convention refugee. The Board based its decision on the applicant"s lack of credibility and the possibility of an internal flight alternative. The Board"s finding regarding credibility focussed on contradictions between the applicant"s evidence and the documentary evidence, and a number of implausible features of the applicant"s evidence.
[2] The applicant asserts he was denied the right to a fair hearing due to the incompetence of the interpreter. The hearing was held in English with the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter. At the beginning of the hearing, the Board member confirmed the applicant and the interpreter could understand each other. No objection was taken to the quality of the interpretation at the time of the hearing.
[3] The issue on this judicial review is whether the quality of the interpretation at the hearing meets the "constitutionally guaranteed standard of interpretation" as set out in R. v. Tran [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951.
[4] The applicant relies on the affidavit of Sudesh Kaur, who describes himself as an accredited interpreter fluent in both the Punjabi and English languages, for evidence regarding the faulty interpretation. The applicant did not file an affidavit.
[5] Based on his review of the audio tape, Mr. Kaur identified seven deficiencies in the interpretation at the hearing. As one of the Board"s findings concerning credibility directly implicates the quality of the interpretation it will be dealt with separately. It pertains to how the applicant was able to travel from California to Canada which the Board member found to be implausible.
[6] The applicant obtained a visitor"s visa to enter the United States with the assistance of the Member of Parliament for his area in India. The applicant testified the Member of Parliament travelled with him to California where he left he applicant to find his own way to Canada. A Punjabi truck driver gave him a ride from California to the Canadian border.
[7] Mr. Kaur, in his affidavit, deposes the following exchange took place at the hearing:
Counsel in English:
Where did you meet this truck driver?
Applicant in Punjabi:
I was asking for a ride on the road.
Interpreter in English:
On the road I was just asking for a ride.
Counsel in English:
Were you hitch hiking?
Interpreter in Punjabi:
Were you just walking on the road?
Applicant in Punjabi:
No sir I was standing by the road.
Interpreter in English:
No I was just standing by the road.
[8] Although the interpreter did not interpret the term hitch-hiking correctly, the subsequent exchange between counsel and the applicant makes it clear the applicant"s evidence was that he was simply standing on the side of a road when a Punjabi truck driver stopped and offered to give him a ride. This latter version of what transpired is also consistent with the account of this event contained in the applicant"s Personal Information Form where there is no mention of hitch-hiking. In this instance, I am not persuaded that the error in the interpretation resulted in any misunderstanding of the evidence by the Board member.
[9] Mr. Kaur also makes reference to what he describes as the exasperated, impatient and irate tone of voice of the interpreter. In his opinion, this resulted in the applicant being brief in his responses in an attempt to avoid irritating anyone at the hearing. In my view this is conjecture on his part and in the absence of an affidavit to this effect from the applicant I am not prepared to conclude this indeed occurred.
[10] With respect to the remaining alleged deficiencies identified in the affidavit, having compared Mr. Kaur"s version of what was said at the hearing to the transcript of the hearing, I am satisfied the Punjabi interpretation of the questions put to the applicant adequately communicated the content and substance of the questions such that the questions were understood by the applicant. Similarly, the English interpretation of the applicant"s responses communicated to the Board member the content and substance of the responses. That the applicant did comprehend the questions being posed is also supported by the evident coherence between the questions and answers.
[11] With respect to omissions, there was a brief conversation between the interpreter and the applicant in which the interpreter sought clarification of the name of the village in India where the applicant lived. This exchange was not interpreted for the Board. While in a perfect world these kinds of exchanges should not occur and ought not to be condoned, they do in fact occur. In this instance, the exchange was brief, it did involve any "coaching" concerning the response, and it was not central to any finding of the Board.
[12] When assessing whether the deficiencies in the interpretation dictate that the applicant should be entitled to a rehearing of his claim, Lamer C.J. in Tran, supra at 990-991, stated:
| ... Given the underlying importance of the interests being protected by the right to interpreter assistance, the constitutionally guaranteed standard of interpretation must be high and allowable departures from that standard limited. In assessing whether there has been a sufficient departure from the standard to satisfy the second stage of inquiry under s. 14, the principle which informs the right - namely, that of linguistic understanding - should be kept in mind. In other words, the question should always be whether there is a possibility that the accused may not have understood a part of the proceedings by virtue of his or her difficulty with the language being used in court. |
[13] In the present case, I am satisfied the applicant understood the proceedings and that the quality of the interpretation did not compromise the fairness of the hearing. Accordingly, it is not necessary to deal with counsel for the respondent"s arguments concerning the failure of the applicant to raise the question of the competency of the interpreter at the hearing or the applicant"s failure to establish that he was prejudiced in any way due to the quality of the interpretation.
[14] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[15] Neither party had a question to submit for certification.
"Dolores M. Hansen"
J.F.C.C.