Date: 20000317
Docket: IMM-973-99
Ottawa, Ontario, the 17th day of March, 2000
Present: The Honourable Mr Justice Pinard
Between:
SOFIANE ALLOUCHE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision rendered January 29, 1999 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, is dismissed.
| J. |
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL.B.
Date: 20000317
Docket: IMM-973-99
Between:
SOFIANE ALLOUCHE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision rendered January 29, 1999 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act.
[2] Owing to the many improbabilities and contradictions described in its decision, the panel did not believe the applicant's story and therefore concluded that he had not discharged the onus of proving that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Algeria.
[3] As we know, in matters of credibility and assessment of the facts, it is not the task of this Court to substitute itself for the Refugee Division, an expert adjudication body, where (as in this case) the applicant fails to prove that the panel rendered a decision based on an erroneous finding of fact that was made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (see paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act). Indeed, having reviewed the evidence, I am of the opinion that the decision in question was based on both the documentary evidence and the applicant's oral testimony.
[4] In this context, the panel's refusal to have an assessment made of certain documents of the applicant was not unreasonable, in my view, especially since the panel was under no legal obligation to do so and it was the applicant who had the burden of proving the basis of his claim. Because the applicant was not considered credible owing to contradictions and improbabilities with which he was properly confronted, this perceived lack of credibility amounts in fact to a finding that there is no credible evidence that could serve as a basis for the claim (see Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, at page 244 (F.C.A.)).
[5] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
| J. |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 17, 2000
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL.B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| DOCKET NO: IMM-973-99 |
| STYLE: SOFIANE ALLOUCHE v. MCI |
| PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC |
| DATE OF HEARING: February 25, 2000 |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: March 17, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Denis Girard FOR THE APPLICANT
Normand Lemyre FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Denis Girard FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada