Date: 20040317
Docket: IMM-3208-03
OTTAWA, Ontario, this 17th day of March, 2004.
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN
BETWEEN:
SAZEDA AKHTER
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[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 April 4, 2003, which found the applicant not to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection for lack of credible evidence.
[2] The negative credibility finding was based on the following findings:
(i) the applicant was evasive during testimony;
(ii) there were omissions, discrepancies, implausibilities, and inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence for which she did not have reasonable explanations, specifically, the applicant gave inconsistent evidence regarding work history, biographical information of family members, and the frequency and manner in which her brother-in-law sexually assaulted her;
(iii) the applicant delayed in making her refugee claim;
(iv) the applicant did not present any documentary evidence to support her testimony that she was an air stewardess, and that her flight crew did not require visas to travel. The Board did not accept her explanation for why she had multiple visas in her passport for the UK, US and India, despite her testimony that other countries did not require visas for flight crews; and,
(v) the applicant did not seek medical assistance in Bangladesh, and did not produce police reports regarding the alleged incidents of abuse.
ANALYSIS
[3] The applicant submits that the Board made patently unreasonable findings. Specifically, the applicant submits that it was patently unreasonable for the Board to have required her to explain why the UK and the US have a different visa policy from other countries, proof that BBA flight crew did not normally require visas, and proof of her employment with BBA. The applicant also submits that the Board erred in finding inconsistencies regarding the alleged sexual assault. Finally, the applicant argues that the Board placed patently unreasonable weight on the 23 day delay in filing the refugee claim, and the failure to seek medical or psychological assistance.
[4] The respondent submits that the Board correctly made an adverse credibility finding on the basis of the contradictions and inconsistencies within the applicant's evidence. The respondent submits it was reasonably open to the Board to draw adverse conclusions from the delay in filing the refugee claim, and failure to seek medical help.
[5] With respect to the Board's credibility finding, this Court is not to interfere unless such a finding is patently unreasonable. See Aguebor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.), and De (Da) Li Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 49 Imm. L.R. (2d) 161 (F.C.A.).
[6] It is open to the Board to make a negative credibility finding based on inconsistencies and contradictions within a claimant's evidence. I have outlined five specific findings that, in the Board's view, affected this applicant's credibility. Upon reviewing the transcript and evidence on record, I find that two of these findings are patently unreasonable.
[7] The record shows that the applicant did provide proof of her employment as an airline steward in her US visa, so that this finding of fact by the Board is patently unreasonable. The Board's implausibility finding that the applicant should be able to explain different visa requirements by different countries for airline stewards from Bangladesh is also patently unreasonable.
[8] On the other hand, the reliance by the Board on inconsistencies in the applicant's PIF, CUV, and oral testimony, the number of times she was sexually assaulted, the delay, and the failure to seek medical assistance are not patently unreasonable bases upon which to dismiss the applicant's credibility.
[9] The Court concludes that the Board's overall credibility finding is sufficiently supported by clear reasons which withstand judicial review on a patently unreasonable standard. The two patently unreasonable parts of the Board's reasons do not override the many other reasonable parts of the Board's reasons for rejecting the claim.
[10] Neither party considers that this case raises a question which warrants certification. The Court agrees that no question should be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
This application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Michael A. Kelen" _______________________________
JUDGE
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3208-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SAZEDA AKHTER
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: March 10, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN
DATED: March 17, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Herinder Singh Gahir FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Lorne McClenaghan FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jaswant Singh Mangat FOR APPLICANT
Barrister & Solicitor
Mississauga, Ontario
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
Toronto Ontario
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20040317
Docket: IMM-3208-03
BETWEEN:
SAZEDA AKHTER
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER