Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

     IMM-2707-96

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 4th day of June 1997

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD

BETWEEN

     MAURICIO ALEXIS ALLIENDES CERIANI,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION,

     Respondent.

     O R D E R

     The application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Division dated July 17, 1996, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.

                                    

                                     Judge

Certified true translation

C. Delon, LL.L.

     IMM-2707-96

BETWEEN

     MAURICIO ALEXIS ALLIENDES CERIANI,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR ORDER

PINARD J.

         This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division dated July 17, 1996, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act. The tribunal preferred the documentary evidence indicating that [translation] "fundamental and lasting changes have occurred in Chile since 1989" to the testimony of the applicant and his brother. The tribunal based its decision on documentary evidence indicating that the social and political situation has been normalized in Chile, to the point that the U.N. High Commission for Refugees and the Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides no longer recognize Chilean refugees. In this context, the tribunal found that the account given by the applicant and his brother in their PIFs and during the hearing of persecution by the state police, military personnel and the DINA was implausible. The tribunal explained, at page 2:

     [translation]

         The tribunal cannot believe the claimants' account because of the documentation as a whole, and particularly Exhibits A-11 [United Nations H.C.R.: Application of the exclusion clause (April 22, 1994)], A-12 [United Nations Commission on Human Rights: Visit by the Special Rapporteur to Chile], A-14 [Response CHL 23039.F (state police)], A-22 [Response CHL 22923.E (state police, military and citizen's remedies)], A-27 [bundle of press reviews] and A-29 [bundle of newspaper articles on Chile], which indicate that fundamental and lasting changes have occurred in Chile since 1989: two democratic presidential elections have been held since then; in 1989, Patricio Aylwin Azocar was elected and in December 1993, Eduardo Frei was in turn elected to preside over the country's destiny.                

     This application was heard at the same time as the application for judicial review in file no. IMM-2485-96, in which the main question in issue, which is the same, was disposed of by the undersigned. Having regard to the evidence in the record, it therefore seems to me that this application should also be dismissed, for the same reasons as those stated in support of my decision in that other case.1

     As well, like counsel for the parties, I do not believe that there is any question here to be certified.

OTTAWA, Ontario

June 4, 1997

                                     YVON PINARD

                                     Judge

Certified true translation

C. Delon, LL.L.

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO:      IMM-2707-96

STYLE OF CAUSE:      MAURICIO ALEXIS ALLIENDES CERIANI

     v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:      MONTRÉAL

DATE OF HEARING:      MAY 21, 1997

REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.

DATED:      JUNE 4, 1997

APPEARANCES:

ALAIN JOFFE          FOR THE APPLICANT

MARIE-CLAUDE DEMERS          FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

NADLER, JOFFE          FOR THE APPLICANT

MONTRÉAL

GEORGE THOMSON          FOR THE RESPONDENT

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA


__________________

1 A copy of the reasons in support of the decision in IMM-2485-96 is appended to these reasons.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.