Date: 19990924
Docket: IMM-5053-98
Between:
MUNANGA META
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated September 9, 1998, which determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.
[2] Munanga Meta is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (former Zaire). She alleges that she has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership in the Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDPS).
[3] The applicant became a UDPS member in December 1995. She attended the meetings of the organization, but did not participate in the demonstrations for fear of reprisals. In 1997, the Kabila regime replaced the Mobutu regime. Political activities were banned, but the applicant"no longer fearing reprisals"decided to take part in the UDPS demonstrations.
[4] She alleges that she participated in a meeting at UDPS headquarters on August 15, 1995. The participants were arrested by soldiers from the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire (AFDL) and were sent to Kokolo camp. The applicant says she was transferred to a residence that was being used as a prison, where she was held for a month and mistreated. Her aunt allegedly arranged her escape with the help of a soldier from Kokolo camp. She hid at her aunt"s home until she left. Last, the applicant claims she has participated in UDPS demonstrations in Canada against the Kabila regime.
[5] The Refugee Division determined that the key elements of the applicant"s claim were not credible.
[6] The applicant submits to begin with that the panel erred in dismissing her call for Board member Sordzi"s disqualification.
[7] At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the applicant asked Mr. Sordzi to disqualify himself, arguing that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. That apprehension of bias was based on two factors: a letter written on June 9, 1992, by a former president of the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI) recommending against the reappointment of four Board members, one of whom was Mr. Sordzi; and a chance encounter between Mr. Sordzi and counsel for the applicant.
[8] On reading the letter, there is nothing to suggest that counsel for the applicant agreed with the recommendation against Board member Sordzi"s reappointment.
[9] I find it hard to see how Mr. Sordzi could have attributed the letter"s contents to counsel unless the subject was discussed during their encounter.
[10] However, as counsel for the respondent correctly points out, no affidavit of counsel for the applicant putting these facts on record was filed in support of the application for judicial review.
[11] There is therefore no evidence in the record to support the allegations of apprehension of bias.
[12] With respect to the reasons the panel gave regarding the applicant"s credibility on the key elements of her claim, I am unable to find that they were unreasonable. For example, it was reasonable for the panel to find it highly incredible for a person who had refrained from demonstrating under the Mobutu regime to participate in demonstrations under the new regime of Kabila, when he had banned political parties.
[13] It was also reasonable to find that ignorance of the repression was not very credible for a person who knew that demonstrations were being held, when the documentary evidence states that the UDPS makes a point of denouncing the authorities" repression.
[14] In addition, I find it reasonable for the panel to have found it unlikely that the applicant saw no soldiers, when the Tam Tam newspaper of August 16, 1997, reports that they were already at the headquarters when she arrived. The panel also noted that an active party member would not be confused over the UDPS cofounder"s identity. The applicant says that Mr. Mpanya is a UDPS coordinator, whereas the documentary evidence describes him as cofounder of the UDPS.
[15] Furthermore, the panel noted that grassroots members of opposition parties have no fear of persecution in the DRC in the event of return. The evidence in the record supports this finding. According to United Nations guidelines on DRC refugees, dated January 5, 1998:
| This category of genuine refugees or asylum seekers should exclude sympathisers or members who were not playing a substantial role within their political parties.1 |
[16] Last, the panel found it suspect that the applicant neglected to mention in the personal information form that soldiers had gone to her home three times to find her. In Grinevich2, Mr. Justice Pinard dealt with the existence of significant omissions:
| Where a refugee claimant fails to mention important facts in his or her PIF, this may legitimately be considered by the Board to be an omission that goes to lack of credibility. |
[17] In short, on the issue of the applicant"s credibility, there is nothing in the record to warrant this court"s intervention. However, the panel"s decision does not deal with the applicant"s activities in Canada or the repercussions in the event of return to the DRC. In Manzila v. Canada (M.C.I.) ,3 Mr. Justice Hugessen held that the Board member had erred in disregarding the applicant"s activities in Canada:
| With respect, the member"s error was that he completely failed to deal with the second part of the applicant"s claim, namely his allegation that his activities here in Canada would have serious repercussions for him in his home country. The member mentions these activities at the very beginning of his decision but he does not dispose of the applicant"s claim that his activities here make him a refugee irrespective of his activities in his country of origin.4 |
[18] Under the circumstances, the application for judicial review is allowed in part. The matter is returned to a different panel to determine whether the applicant"s activities could make her a refugee independently of her activities in her country of origin.
Danièle Tremblay-Lamer
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 24, 1999
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-5053-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: MUNANGA META v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: September 23, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER OF TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
DATED September 24, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Jean-Michel Montbriand FOR THE APPLICANT
Daniel Latulippe FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jean-Michel Montbriand FOR THE APPLICANT
Doyon, Guertin, Montbriand & Plamondon
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________1 Exhibit A-7, Guidelines for Refugees and Asylum Seekers from the Democratic Republic of Congo .
2 Grinevich v. Canada (M.C.I.) (April 11, 1997), IMM-1773-96 (F.C.T.D.).