Date: 20040402
Docket: IMM-3196-03
Citation: 2004 FC 498
Vancouver, British Columbia, Friday, the 2nd day of April, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DAWSON
BETWEEN:
VAN HIEN LE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Van Hien Le is a citizen of Vietnam who asserts a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his political beliefs and membership in a social group, namely a capitalist in the communist country of Vietnam. Mr. Le also asserts that he is a person in need of protection.
[2] In the narrative portion of his Personal Information Form ("PIF"), Mr. Le states that while in Vietnam he was a director of the Hanoi Industrial Equipment Corporation and as such he was responsible for arranging purchasing contracts throughout the country. He states that he used capitalist principles in carrying out his duties, including giving gifts to suppliers. Mr. Le states that in 1999 he was confronted by his business partners and accused of using "capitalist" methods, which was a criminal offense in Vietnam. Mr. Le says that he feared he would be jailed for his methods.
[3] Mr. Le also states in his PIF narrative that in early 2000 he took monies out of the Hanoi Industrial Equipment Corporation and purchased a visitor's visa to come to Canada for a trade fair. Mr. Le says that if returned to Vietnam he would be harmed or jailed by his business partners for alleged embezzlement of company funds and would be persecuted by the authorities for using capitalist methods.
[4] Mr. Le's claim was heard by a panel of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Panel") on March 6, 2003, and a negative oral decision was rendered that same day. The Panel found very little of Mr. Le's testimony to be reliable or trustworthy. The Panel found that his evidence was "replete with inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities". It followed, in the Panel's view, that Mr. Le's evidence was neither credible nor trustworthy and that he failed to establish his claim that he was a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Mr. Le brings this application for judicial review from that decision.
[5] In its reasons, the Panel carefully detailed the inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities that led to its conclusion that Mr. Le's evidence was not credible.
[6] With respect to inconsistencies, the Panel noted that while Mr. Le testified orally that he was the manager of the Hanoi Industrial Equipment Corporation, he had completed a Background Information Document which stated he was the director of Assembly Line Trading Ltd. This inconsistency went to the heart of his claim and was not properly explained.
[7] Further, when interviewed by an immigration officer in February 2002, the immigration officer recorded that Mr. Le told him that Mr. Le's wife had left him in 1999. When asked why this detail was omitted from his PIF (which was completed in March 2002) Mr. Le responded that when he completed his PIF his wife had not yet told him that she had left. When it was pointed out to Mr. Le that this answer was inconsistent with having told the immigration officer in February 2002 that she had left, Mr. Le responded by saying that his wife had not fully told him about leaving. Mr. Le also stated that the events that caused his wife to leave the home occurred in April 2002.
[8] Having carefully read the entire transcript of the evidence taken before the Panel, I am satisfied that the evidence justified the Panel's conclusion that "[...] from observing you when you gave your evidence today, I was of the distinct impression that you were concocting evidence as you went along for the purpose of enhancing your refugee claim. In my view, you were quite capable of saying whatever you thought was necessary to succeed".
[9] With respect to the omissions, it is settled law that the Refugee Protection Division may draw a negative inference where a claimant omits significant information from their PIF. See, for example, Akhigbe v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 249. In the present case, Mr. Le's PIF made no mention of the allegation that his wife was threatened by his business partners which forced her to move away, or that he feared charges of destroying government property and betraying his country if he returned to Vietnam. These were central elements of his claim as he explained it to the Panel. I accept the submission of counsel for the Minister that there was little similarity between the content of Mr. Le's PIF and the evidence Mr. Le gave before the Panel.
[10] While Mr. Le attempted to explain some of the omissions, it was open to the Panel to reject those explanations, as it did, and to make adverse credibility findings based on the omissions.
[11] At the oral hearing of the application for judicial review counsel for Mr. Le did not pursue the argument set out in the memorandum of fact and law that the difficulties with the content of the PIF flowed from translation problems. This was a submission that had no foundation in the evidence and which was contradicted by Mr. Le's evidence before the Panel when he identified the PIF and spoke of its translation to him.
[12] To conclude, the Panel committed no reviewable error in concluding that there was insufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to establish that Mr. Le is either a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. The application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[13] Counsel did not propose any question for certification and no question arises on this record.
ORDER
[14] THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
(Sgd.) "Eleanor R. Dawson"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3196-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: VAN HIEN LE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, B.C.
DATE OF HEARING: March 31, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: DAWSON J.
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Negar Azmudeh for Applicant
Ms. Sandra Weafer for Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Embarkation Law Group for Applicant
Vancouver, B.C.
Mr. Morris Rosenberg for Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada