Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

     IMM-3929-96

B E T W E E N:

     EMENE BIE

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

RICHARD, J.:

     The applicant seeks to set aside the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated October 2nd, 1996, wherein the Board determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.

     Central to the decision of the Board was its finding, based on the documentary evidence that while the applicant was a member of the U.P.L.C., a clandestine political party not legally recognized in Zaire, he was not an active member of that political party in Zaire and did not play any leadership role in it. As a result the Board concluded that he had a low profile and had not drawn the attention of the governing authorities to himself. The Board also discounted his testimony concerning his arrest because of his low political profile and the failure of the president of the party to mention it in his response to a written inquiry from the Board.

     On the basis of the record before it, this finding is patently unreasonable and unfair. In his PIF and oral evidence the applicant stated that he was not only a member of the party but also its vice-president. He stated that he actively participated in its meetings and recruitment. He claimed that he was arrested after an informer had disclosed his activities.

     The applicant produced two documents before the Board which attested to his membership in the party in Zaire and to his office as vice-president of a local cell. The Board wrote to the president of the party to confirm the authenticity of this information. The president responded in writing confirming the facts set out in the documents and adding that the applicant was an active member of the party in Zaire. In response to an inquiry from the RCO at the hearing, the applicant and his counsel agreed that the Board could, if it wished, obtain further information from the president of the party. The Board decided not to so do.

     As a result, it was unreasonable for the Board to comment that the president did not confirm the arrest of the applicant when the Board did not seek such confirmation.

     While the Board also found that the applicant's party had not participated in public demonstrations, it is not possible to determine how much its determination was influenced by its finding that the applicant did not have an active leadership role in his party contrary to the documentary evidence it had before it.

     Accordingly, the decision is set aside and remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

"John D. Richard"

Judge

Toronto, Ontario

May 7, 1997

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                  IMM-3929-96

STYLE OF CAUSE:          EMENE BIE

                     - and -

                     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                     AND IMMIGRATION

DATE OF HEARING:          MAY 6, 1997

PLACE OF HEARING:          TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:      RICHARD, J.

DATED:                  MAY 7, 1997

APPEARANCES:

                     Mr. Raoul S. Boulakia

                         For the Applicant

                     Mr. John Loncar

                         For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

                     Raoul S. Boulakia

                     45 Saint Nicholas Street

                     Toronto, Ontario

                     M4Y 1W6

                         For the Applicant

                      George Thomson

                     Deputy Attorney General

                     of Canada

                         For the Respondent

                     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                     Court No.:      IMM-3929-96

                     Between:

                     EMENE BIE

     Applicant

                         - and -

                     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                     AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

                     REASONS FOR ORDER


 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.