IMM-4548-96
B E T W E E N:
ERDULFO MEJIA
ROMMEL MEJIA
LENIN MEJIA
OLGA ULLOA
OLGA MEJIA
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD, D.J.:
This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Board (the "Board") dated October 26th, 1996. By that decision the Board determined that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
Facts
The applicants are citizens of Honduras. They came to Canada in 1994. The male applicant worked for an American tobacco cultivation and export company. His responsibility was for cash crops which were mainly exported. His client suppliers were peasant co-operatives. He testified that, during his employment, he met frequently with the peasant suppliers. During that period the peasants were asserting land claims in respect of tracts of uncultivated land owned by landowner groups.
The male applicant testified that, on July 15, 1994, he attended an employment related meeting with a peasant group. The meeting was interrupted by six armed men believed to be members of the military or police. The male applicant was accused of being a peasant agitator who promoted land invasions. He was forced into a truck, blindfolded and bound. He was then assaulted by the same men, his life was threatened and he was left on a dirt road. Two weeks after his release from hospital, the male applicant consulted the police who said they would investigate his complaint. However, they refrained from taking notes or recording the complaint.
In July of 1994, the male applicant went to Guatemala to obtain Canadian Visitor Visas. On his return, he was followed in vehicles known to be used by the military, the police and death squads. In mid-August, the applicants began receiving threatening phone calls, and the family's dog was shot. Their home was being watched by individuals thought to be military persons.
The male applicant testified that on August 12, 1994, he attended a meeting he had organized with peasant groups because serious problems had arisen concerning tobacco packaging and classification. The meeting was interrupted by people the male applicant believed to be members of the military. The men discharged their weapons, shouting that they wanted the "agitator." A technician was killed and the male applicant believes that the technician was mistaken for himself. He fled and spent the night in the mountains. The next day, he contacted his family and told them to stay at a hotel. Three days later, his family left for Canada.
The male applicant remained in hiding at a farm he owned. On August 31st, 1994, he resigned from his job in the hope of improving his situation. Two days later, armed men searched for the male applicant at the farm and returned every day for three more days. On September 6, 1994, the male applicant decided to leave the country. He left on September 7, 1994.
The Board's Decision
While concluding that the testimony of both adult applicants was consistent with their statement in their PIF's (Personal Information Forms), and was delivered in an earnest manner, the Board decided, nevertheless, that the applicants' story was not plausible. They also found the male applicant's delay in leaving Honduras until September 7, 1994, to be inconsistent with his alleged fear of persecution. He was in a legal position to leave much earlier (a Canadian visa issued on July 22, 1994 and an American multiple-entry visa was renewed in May of 1994). The Board found it implausible that the agents of persecution were persecuting him in his hiding place when he could have followed his family much earlier than he did. The Board attached some significance to the fact that the applicants encountered no problems in leaving the country. The departure of both the principal applicant and the other applicants was meticulously documented by the Honduras authorities without any difficulty. In my view, the evidence supports the Board's conclusion that "we do not believe that all this could have happened had the mafia-like military or their cohorts been in lethal nationwide pursuit of Mr. Mejia."
Analysis
The applicable jurisprudence confers a high degree of deference on tribunals such as this Board when determining the plausibility of testimony heard by it. The leading case in this area is the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Aguebor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration1 where Décary J.A. stated:
| There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences. As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review. In Giron, the Court merely observed that in the area of plausibility, the unreasonableness of a decision may be more palpable, and so more easily identifiable, since the account appears on the face of the record. In our opinion, Giron in no way reduces the burden that rests on an appellant, of showing that the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division could not reasonably have been drawn. |
In this case, all of the findings challenged by the applicants are findings of credibility and implausibility. The Board, while commenting that the applicant's testimony was "earnest", found it, nevertheless to be implausible. Such a finding was reasonably open to the Board on this record. It was clearly open to the Board to find unacceptable the male applicant's explanation for the three week delay in leaving the country. Likewise, it was reasonably open to the Board to conclude, as it did, that the applicants were not being sought by the police or military given the ease with which they were able to depart. The decisions of tribunals such as this are reviewable only when they are patently unreasonable. It is customary for a Court to show deference to such a specialized tribunal2. On this record, I am unable to conclude that the Board's decision herein was patently unreasonable.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
Neither counsel suggested certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to Section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree with counsel. Accordingly no question will be certified.
"Darrel V. Heald"
D.J.
Toronto, Ontario
September 26, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-4548-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: ERDULFO MEJIA ET AL.
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 25, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD, D.J.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 26, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Malila Bhardwaj
For the Applicants
Mr. David Tyndale
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Bhardwaj, Pohani Law Office
20 Eglinton Evenue West
Suite 903
P.O. Box 2057
Toronto, Ontario
M4R 1K8
For the Applicants
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-4548-96
Between:
ERDULFO MEJIA ET AL.
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1 (1993), 160 N.R. 313 (F.C.A.)
2 Compare De Connick v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1996), 110 F.T.R. 207 per Muldoon J.