Date: 19991201
Docket: IMM-1398-99
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 1999
| Present: THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE McGILLIS |
BETWEEN:
ALEKSANDER GOMONENKO,
SVETLANA GOMONENKO,
MARINA GOMONENKO,
Plaintiff,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Defendant.
J U D G M E N T
For the reasons given at the hearing, the application for judicial review is dismissed. The case raises no serious question of general importance.
| D. McGillis Judge |
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
Date: 19991201
Docket: IMM-1398-99
BETWEEN:
ALEKSANDER GOMONENKO,
SVETLANA GOMONENKO,
MARINA GOMONENKO,
Plaintiff,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on December 1, 1999)
McGILLIS J.
[1] The Immigration and Refugee Board ("the panel") dismissed the refugee claim by the plaintiffs, of Russian nationality, primarily because their story lacked credibility.
[2] The plaintiffs based their claim on a fear of persecution because of their nationality and alleged that they had been threatened, mistreated and attacked by Kazakh nationalists. The principal plaintiff further maintained that he had been harassed after giving money to the "Lad" movement. The plaintiffs further maintained that they had problems finding jobs. They said they were dismissed, excluded from certain types of work and subjected to less favourable working conditions than their Kazakh colleagues. The plaintiffs said they sought protection from the authorities on several occasions but it was denied.
[3] At the hearing before the panel the plaintiffs were shown documentary evidence which in some respects contradicted their testimony. When confronted by this evidence they indicated that they could not contradict the relevant points and offered no valid explanation.
[4] In its reasons the panel concluded that the documentary evidence was inconsistent with the fear of persecution alleged by the plaintiffs and that the latter"s story was improbable. In this connection the panel noted that in their testimony the plaintiffs had not contradicted the documentary evidence. Further, the panel noted that the manufactured evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, namely a medical certificate, had further reduced their credibility.
[5] Despite the eloquent arguments of counsel for the plaintiffs, I am not persuaded that in its assessment and analysis of the documentary evidence and its conclusions dealing with the plaintiffs" credibility the panel made any error which could require my intervention. In my view the panel did not err in attaching more weight to the documentary evidence, especially when the plaintiffs" testimony as a whole is considered. The panel"s decision is thus based on the evidence in the record and the inferences are not unreasonable.
[6] The application for judicial review is dismissed. The case raises no serious question of general importance.
| D. McGillis Judge |
OTTAWA
December 2, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT No.: IMM-1398-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Aleksander Gomonenko et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration |
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
| DATE OF HEARING: December 1, 1999 |
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: McGILLIS J.
DATED: December 2, 1999
APPEARANCES:
| Michel Le Brun FOR THE APPLICANT |
| Josée Paquin FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Michel Le Brun FOR THE APPLICANT |
Montréal, Quebec
| Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada