Date: 20041105
Docket: IMM-1496-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1518
Ottawa, Ontario, the 5th day of November 2004
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais
BETWEEN:
MILTON AUGUSTO ESCALANTE RAMIREZ
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board (the panel) on January 27, 2004 which denied Mr. Escalante Ramirez the status of a Convention refugee or person in need of protection and found that his asylum application did not have the minimum basis within the meaning of section 97 and subsection 107(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act).
RELEVANT FACTS
[2] Mr. Escalante Ramirez (the applicant) is a citizen of Peru who alleges he has a well-founded fear of persecution in his country of origin because of his membership in a particular social group. He worked for RYF, a limited liability company, specializing in civil projects and responsible for most of the work in the municipality.
[3] In early February 2002 the applicant agreed to become involved in an electoral campaign so a friend's father could run for mayor. Shortly after the campaign began, the applicant alleged he and four companions were stopped by a car, taken out and searched by six abductors identifying themselves as members of the "Shining Path". He was released well after his colleagues, and told that the territory in which he was seeking votes was not to be shared with them.
[4] That was when the applicant alleged they were looking for him and he received calls from the same abductors, who wanted his help to perform certain tasks. He decided to leave politics and go to Lima, where he stayed for 15 days. He finally left Peru in mid-June 2002.
ANALYSIS
[5] The standard of review applicable to an asylum claimant's credibility is not in dispute: it is that of the patently unreasonable error (Singh v. Canada (MCI), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1283; Kabeya v. Canada (MCI), [2000] F.C.J. No. 106; Sivagurunathan v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1905; Botros v. Canada (MCI), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1773).
[6] This is a heavy burden for the applicant and for the reasons that follow he was unable to discharge it.
[7] Although the panel wrote in its reasons that the applicant had not answered the question of how he came to be the only one targeted and forced to work with the Shining Path, the following paragraph of the decision notes that the applicant testified that the members of the "Shining Path" were looking for him because of the important position he held in his company. If as the applicant alleged the panel had not taken his answer into account it would not have been possible for the panel to make such a statement. The questions that preceded and followed the said question clearly show that the panel took the applicant's answers into account.
[8] The fact that the panel doubted the applicant's answer is not an error of law as the applicant alleged, but rather a question regarding credibility, which is clearly within the panel's province.
[9] Additionally, the applicant argued that the panel made an error by writing in its reasons that he had not made a claim in the U.S. because in his view that country was as unstable as Peru. The applicant said he never personally said this, but heard this comment from someone in the Salvation Army.
[10] In his reply to question 18 in the officer's notes, dated July 9, 2002, [TRANSLATION] "Why not refugee status in USA?", the applicant replied [TRANSLATION] "In the USA it is as unstable as in Peru. There is a lot of insecurity there". Further on in the transcript he admitted that he regarded the U.S. as an unstable country. There may be a misunderstanding or confusion between what the applicant believed and what was said to him. In any case, this is very far from being a patently unreasonable defect.
[11] Finally, the panel mentioned three contradictions or discrepancies the existence of which the applicant denied. The applicant did not provide a valid explanation of the first, namely that it was either the friend of a friend or the father of a friend who was seeking the position of mayor. On the second, there was clearly a discrepancy between the date when the problems or threats began. On the third, it was not unreasonable to conclude that there was a contradiction in the applicant's attitude in fearing for the life of his mother, where she is, and departing leaving her with his nephews.
[12] Further, there are several contradictions which were noted by the panel during the applicant's testimony, but not related in the reasons.
[13] In Adams v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.C.J. No. 538, at paragraph 10, Heneghan J. cited several precedents indicating that:
The Board is the trier of fact and is entitled to make reasonable findings regarding the credibility of a claimant's story based on implausibilities, common sense and rationality . . . In the absence of an overriding error giving rise to capricious or perverse factual findings, the decision of the Board should stand . . .
CONCLUSION
[14] As the tribunal specializing in asylum applications, and the one in the best position to assess the applicant's credibility, the panel is entitled to great deference. The applicant did not persuade the Court that the panel made errors of law or fact which could justify its intervention.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that:
- the application for judicial review be dismissed;
- no question for certification.
|
|
"Pierre Blais"
J.F.C. |
Certified true translation
Jacques Deschênes, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1496-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MILTON AGUSTO ESCALANTE RAMIREZ v. MCI.
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 26, 2004
REASONS AND ORDER BY: Blais J.
DATED: November 5, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Manuel Centurion FOR THE APPLICANT
Evan Liosis FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MANUEL CENTURION FOR THE APPLICANT
1231, Ste Catherine O., Suite 508
Montréal, Quebec H3G 1P5
Telephone: (514) 667-5700
Fax: (514) 849-5607
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF CANADA FOR THE RESPONDENT
Complexe Guy-Favreau
200, René-Lévesque Blvd. Ouest
Tour Est, 5e étage
Montréal, Quebec H2Z 1X4
Ottawa, Ontario
Telephone: (514) 283-8760
Fax: (514) 283-3856