Date: 20040122
Docket: IMM-6637-02
Citation: 2004 FC 87
Ottawa, Ontario, the 22nd day of January, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SNIDER
BETWEEN:
SEREF SINAN, SENNUR SINAN, FURKAN SINAN, and GOKHAN SINAN
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
SNIDER J.
[1] Mr. Seref Sinan, his wife, Sennur Sinan, and their two children, Furkan Sinan and Gokhan Sinan (collectively referred to as the "Applicants"), citizens of Turkey, arrived in Canada on May 16, 2002 and claim to be Convention refugees. Mr. Sinan fears persecution based on his political opinion and Alevi religion. As members of the same family, the other Applicants' fear of persecution is tied to that of Mr. Sinan. After a hearing before the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board"), their claim was denied in a decision dated November 29, 2002.
Issue
[2] The issue raised by the Applicants is whether the Board erred by making erroneous findings of fact, misstating the evidence, making credibility and plausibility findings unsupported by evidence, not considering the totality of the evidence, and by failing to give adequate reasons for its decision.
Board's Decision
[3] The central issue for the Board was credibility. The Board found that there was insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to determine the well-foundedness of Mr. Sinan's refugee claims. There were numerous inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions throughout the Applicants' evidence, including among Mr. Sinan's Port of Entry ("POE") notes, the Personal Information Form ("PIF") and his testimony at the hearing. The Board stated:
"[T]he panel finds that while the discrepancies and contradictions considered individually might have seemed insignificant, when taken together and considered in context they support a finding of lack of credibility."
[4] The Board made more adverse credibility findings when it considered the Applicant's political profile and ultimately found that his profile did not interest the authorities in Turkey. The Board found that the Applicant failed to prove his Alevi identity and to demonstrate the well-foundedness of his fear based on his Alevi religion.
[5] The Board canvassed the documentary evidence available to them and found the following:
· Being Alevi is not, on its own, a sufficient reason to fear oppression. There
is some discrimination against Alevis but no systematic oppression of all Alevis.
· Alevis who are vocal in terms of criticizing the state or who appear to be
communists, "may expect 'ruder' treatment by police and other authorities".
· Alevi Kurds are not persecuted but, rather, vulnerable to suspicion, gross
prejudice and mistreatment due to their perceived political opinion.
[6] Finally, the Board found that there is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to determine that the Applicants are in need of protection.
[7] The Applicants object to the numerous findings of the Board that, added together, lead it to conclude that Mr. Sinan is not credible.
Analysis
[8] It is well-established that findings of credibility and plausibility lie particularly within the Board's jurisdiction and, therefore, the Court's intervention is merited only when such findings are completely unreasonable (Aguebor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 at para. 4 (F.C.A.)). The applicable standard of review for such findings is, therefore, patent unreasonableness.
[9] It is apparent from a review of the record, including the transcript of the hearing itself, that there were numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the Applicants. Although the Applicants have attempted to explain some of them away, the overwhelming effect of the totality of the testimony is that it is not credible. This is not a case of a Board picking apart minute details of the evidence, as in Owusu-Ansah v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), 98 N.R. 312 (F.C.A.). Rather, the inconsistencies pointed out by the Board go to significant and important matters.
[10] During the course of the hearing, numerous inconsistencies were put to Mr. Sinan. The Board considered his explanations for these inconsistencies and explained, in clear terms, why these explanations were not accepted. Just because an applicant gives an explanation does not mean that the explanation must be accepted by the Board. It is open to the Board to consider the response or explanation and determine whether it is sufficient. I see no example in this case where the Board ignored an explanation.
[11] The Applicants have put forward alternative explanations for many of the Board's findings. When the standard of review is, as here, one of patent unreasonableness, it is not sufficient to present an alternative line of reasoning - even where that may present a reasonable explanation. What the Applicants must do is to point to a conclusion of the Board that is not supportable in any way on the evidence. The Applicants have failed to persuade me that any of the most significant findings were patently unreasonable. I cannot conclude that the decision as a whole is patently unreasonable.
[12] The most important conclusion of the Board was that the two alleged arrests and detention of Mr. Sinan were fabricated by the Applicants. This conclusion, explained in comprehensive reasons, was based on the Board's numerous adverse credibility findings. This conclusion can only be erroneous, in my opinion, if the cumulative effect of the Board's credibility findings on which it is based is patently unreasonable. As noted above, the test is not whether I would have rejected or accepted the testimony of Mr. Sinan, but whether the conclusion of the Board is patently unreasonable. In my view, it is not.
[13] In any event, even if the Board committed certain minor errors along the way, the Court's intervention is not warranted and the Board's decision should stand. This is because the Board found, and the Applicants did not challenge, the following finding:
"The panel finds that the discriminatory treatment experienced by the claimants in the past does not reach the level of individual or cumulative persecution in accordance with the Convention definition and Hathaway. The panel further finds on the evidence adduced that the serious possibility of future persecution should they return to Turkey is not well-founded."
[14] As well, the Applicant did not successfully challenge the Board's finding that Mr. Sinan is not, on a balance of probabilities, an active or vocal Alevi.
[15] For these reasons, the application will be dismissed.
[16] Neither party proposed a question for certification. None will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. There is no question for certification.
"Judith A. Snider"
____________________________
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6637-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: SEREF SINAN ET AL v. THE MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: January 8, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Alp Debreli FOR THE APPLICANTS
Mr. Stephen Jarvis FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Alp Debreli FOR THE APPLICANTS
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada