Date: 19990910
Docket: IMM-69-99
Ottawa, Ontario, September 10, 1999.
Present: Mr. Justice Denault
Between:
PARMINDER KAUR
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
PIERRE DENAULT
Judge
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Date: 19990910
Docket: IMM-69-99
Between:
PARMINDER KAUR
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
DENAULT J.
1 The applicant, a citizen of India (Punjab), seeks judicial review of a negative decision of the Refugee Division.
2 In its decision, the Panel identified five parts of the evidence that led it to find the applicant not credible, owing to their implausibility or the applicant's vague and inconsistent testimony with respect thereto.
3 In his argument in support of the application for judicial review, counsel for the applicant referred to each of those points and tried to show that there was no inconsistency in his client's testimony or that any inconsistency noted was minor and did not warrant the refusal of her claim.
4 After reviewing all the evidence and reading each document-the applicant's testimony in particular-I can only find that the inconsistency and implausibility the Panel identified were sufficiently significant to justify its finding. In short, despite her counsel's commendable effort, I am of the opinion that the applicant did not show any error warranting this Court's intervention.
5 Thus, in view of the applicant's inconsistent evidence on her children's visits to members of her family, it was not unreasonable for the Panel to infer that she was not credible. Nor was it unreasonable to find that the applicant's testimony-on whether she was dealt with a gynecologist, nurse or female doctor on leaving the police station where she said she had been raped-was vague and inconsistent. Also, with respect to the applicant's claim that the police accused her of being associated with the All India Sikh Student Federation (AISSF), the Refugee Division did not believe her when she said that the police wanted her for sympathizing with Babar Khalsa members because there was nothing in the evidence to establish any connection between the applicant and Babar Khalsa members. Therefore, it was not unreasonable to find her not credible with respect to that allegation.
6 Counsel for the applicant pointed to the fact that the Panel gave no weight to a document that an AISSF representative purportedly asked the applicant to print. This document invited people to a protest march. According to counsel for the applicant, this document is significant in that it is what supposedly led the police to arrest the applicant's father and look for her. The Panel gave no weight to this document because the date on the translation was different from the original.
7 While it appears the document dated 1996 was probably the sample the AISSF representative wanted the applicant to print for the 1998 protest march, the applicant's testimony showed a great deal of confusion regarding this document. Thus, it is surprising that the applicant did not notice the discrepancy between the date on the original and the date on the translation before the hearing, given that she had produced the document herself. Her attempt to explain how '98 had been substituted for '96 was strange and nebulous, to say the least. In short, although the Panel's decision to give no weight to this document might seem harsh, in my view it is neither capricious nor unreasonable.
8 After reviewing all the evidence, I am of the opinion that in the case at bar, the Court's intervention is unwarranted and the application for judicial review must be dismissed. In the case at bar, there is no serious question of general importance to certify under subsection 83(1) of the Immigration Act.
PIERRE DENAULT
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
September 10, 1999
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-69-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: PARMINDER KAUR
v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE DENAULT J.
DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 1999
APPEARANCES:
JEAN-FRANÇOIS BERTRAND FOR THE APPLICANT
SYLVIANE ROY FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
JEFFREY NADLER FOR THE APPLICANT
SYLVIANE ROY
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada