Date: 20000929
Docket: IMM-5863-99
Ottawa, Ontario, the 29th day of September 2000
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
Yeakut BEGUM
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, dated November 12, 1999, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
| YVON PINARD |
| JUSTICE |
Certified true translation
John Arrayet
Date: 20000929
Docket: IMM-5863-99
Between:
Yeakut BEGUM
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] The application for judicial review concerns a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the panel) dated November 12, 1999, determining that the applicant was not a Convention refugee, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. (1985), c. I-2.
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, basically maintains that she and her daughter were victims of abuse and harassment by her husband, the father of the child. The applicant's arguments essentially dealt with the assessment of the evidence by the panel, which did not find her testimony credible. For her application to succeed, the applicant therefore had to prove, pursuant to paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. (1985), c. F-7, that the panel based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.
[3] The panel did not believe that the applicant left Bangladesh because of her daughter's forced marriage, since it found it implausible that, while fearing for her daughter's well-being, she would have left her so near her father, and having regard to the documentary evidence, which was that it is illegal for a girl under eighteen to marry in Bangladesh. Moreover, the panel's decision is supported by the documentary evidence. The panel also does not seem to have placed too much weight on the statement made by the applicant at the port of entry, the admissibility of this kind of examination record being settled (see Multani v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (March 27, 2000), IMM-1361-99 and Al Dalawi v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (August 5, 1999), IMM-6394-98). Not only did the omission in the applicant's statement relate to an important fact but the omission had to be considered in the context of other implausibilities in the applicant's testimony and in her Personal Information Form.
[4] Under the circumstances, and since I am not satisfied that the inferences drawn by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, which is a specialized tribunal, were unreasonable,
(see Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 160 N.R. 315), there are no grounds for interfering with the panel's finding that objective fear of persecution was not established, and this is sufficient for the application for judicial review to be dismissed.
| YVON PINARD |
| JUDGE |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 29, 2000
Certified true translation
John Arrayet
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-5863-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: YEAKAT BEGUM v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 16, 2000
REASONS FOR THE ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2000
APPEARANCES:
| MICHEL LEBRUN FOR THE APPLICANT |
| SIMON RUEL FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| MICHEL LEBRUN FOR THE APPLICANT |
Montréal, Quebec
| Morris Rosenburg FOR THE RESPONDENT |
Deputy attorney general Of Canada