Date: 20050929
Docket: IMM-1417-05
Citation: 2005 FC 1289
BETWEEN:
Altin Begolli
Applicant
- and -
The Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated February 10, 2005, wherein the Board found the applicant not to be a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Altin Begolli (the applicant) is a citizen of Albania. He alleges a fear of persecution based on his religious beliefs.
[3] The Board based its decision on a negative credibility finding. In questions of credibility, this Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Board unless the applicant can demonstrate that the Board's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). The Board is a specialized tribunal capable of assessing the plausibility and credibility of a testimony, to the extent that the inferences which it draws from it are not unreasonable (Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and its reasons are expressed clearly and comprehensibly (Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 130 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.)).
[4] I do not believe the Board erred in its determination that the applicant was not credible in his claim. For example, the primary factors that lead me to believe this are the applicant's statement in his Point of Entry ("POE") notes which states that he does not fear persecution if he returned to his country and the additional notes of the Immigration Officer's interview which state that "I want to live in Canada because the economical conditions in Albania are not good. I do not fear persecution in Albania. I want to come to Canada to claim refugee status and to find work." Furthermore, the applicant wrote "no religion" on his POE notes under the question of "your religion". The Board found it difficult to reconcile that the applicant would want to claim refugee status based on his religion if he declared that he had no religion. When questioned about all this, the applicant stated that it was a translation error, however, the Board is entitled to rely on the POE notes and/or on the applicant's Personal Information Form ("PIF") instead of the applicant's subsequent testimony, especially if there is other evidence to doubt the applicant's testimony. His testimony revealed numerous inconsistencies with his POE notes, his PIF and the documentary evidence.
[5] The applicant failed to produce a copy of his baptismal certificate and there were no documents produced that would indicate that he was a Christian. The applicant stated that he didn't produce it because he was in a rush and left it behind, however he was able to gather together numerous other documents which he produced at the hearing. This document is crucial to his claim and the applicant had ample time to have it mailed to him in Canada. The applicant was also unable to recite any part of the Hail Mary and stumbled badly through the Lord's Prayer. These observations by the Board are sufficient to conclude that the applicant was not Catholic.
[6] The applicant stated in his PIF that his brother-in-law helped his brother to check his house and they were shocked when they saw the condition it was in, yet the applicant alleges that his brother was out to kill him. It does not make sense that his brother, who was out to kill him, would want to go to his house to get some of his things and would be shocked to see it that way. The applicant blames this contradiction on an error by the translator, however the translator declared and certified that she has accurately interpreted the entire content of the form and that the applicant fully understood the entire content of this form. It was reasonable for the Board to conclude that these explanations were implausible.
[7] Finally, upon reviewing the tribunal record, I am not convinced, in spite of the applicant's counsel's able presentation, of any breach of procedural fairness in the conduct of the hearing before the Board or of any reviewable error by the Board.
[8] It is for the above reasons that the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 29, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1417-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: Altin Begolli v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: September 8, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: September 29, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Elizabeth A. Wozniak FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Lori Rasmussen FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Cragg Wozniak FOR THE APPLICANT
Halifax, Nova Scotia
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada