Date: 19990429
Docket: IMM-1268-98
Ottawa, Ontario, April 29, 1999
Before: Pinard J.
Between:
GURNE SARVJIT KAUR,
Applicant,
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
ORDER
The application for judicial review from the decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division on February 24, 1998 that the applicant was not a Convention refugee is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
Date: 19990429
Docket: IMM-1268-98
Between:
GURNE SARVJIT KAUR,
Applicant,
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] The application for judicial review is from a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division ("the Refugee Division") on February 24, 1998 finding that the applicant was not credible and determining that she is not a Convention refugee:
| The Refugee Division determines that Sarvjit Kaur GURNE, also known as Harmeet KAUR, is not a "Convention refugee" for the following reasons: the claimant is not credible. It is not established by credible evidence that the claimant was arrested on September 5, 1995. Therefore, the Division does not find evidence that there is a serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted if she were to return to India. |
[2] The Refugee Division did not believe the applicant's story for the following reasons:
| - she was not aware of the fact that the Chief Minister of the Punjab, Beant Singh, was assassinated five days before her arrest; |
| - her story about the assistance of her cousin to Sikh militants was not the same at the hearing as in her Personal Information Form; |
| - she did not request a pregnancy test after the rape that she alleged; and |
| - she remained in India for a year and nine months after the rape in question. |
[3] I find that each of the points noted by the tribunal in support of its decision that she was not credible is fully supported by the evidence which the tribunal had before it. Additionally, it should be noted that the tribunal did not confine itself to insignificant details in disputing the applicant's credibility, since what it did not believe was the central event on which the claim to refugee status was based. Finally, it must be assumed that the tribunal considered all the evidence before it.
[4] As we know, it is not up to this Court in questions of credibility and the weighing of evidence to usurp the function of an administrative tribunal when the person who is denied refugee status fails to prove that the 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 (see s. 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act).
[5] In the circumstances, I cannot conclude on the basis of this evidence that the decision of the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, is unreasonable (see Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)).
[6] The application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO,
April 29, 1999.
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-1268-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: GURNE SARVJIT KAUR
v.
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 15, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: APRIL 29, 1999
APPEARANCES:
JEAN-FRANÇOIS FISET FOR THE APPLICANT
PATRICIA DESLAURIERS FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
JEAN-FRANÇOIS FISET FOR THE APPLICANT
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA