Date: 20031219
Docket: IMM-1530-03
Citation: 2003 FC 1486
Between:
Sergio Eduardo GUARNEROS ROJAS
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 of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated February 25, 2003, wherein the Board found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "Act").
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Mexico and he alleges a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of a threat to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of a group of hoodlums.
[3] The Board concluded that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. The Board found that the applicant was not credible because his testimony was incoherent and implausible.
[4] The applicant submits that the Board's credibility findings are unreasonable and should be set aside.
[5] With respect to questions of credibility, this Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Board unless the applicant can demonstrate that the Board's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (see subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). Furthermore, the Board is a specialized tribunal capable of assessing the plausibility and credibility of a testimony, to the extent that the inferences which it draws from it are not unreasonable (Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and its reasons are expressed clearly and comprehensibly (Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 130 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.)).
[6] As the Federal Court of Appeal has stated in Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 at 244, the tribunal's perception that a claimant is not credible with respect to a material element of his or her claim for refugee status may amount to a finding that there is no credible evidence to support the applicant's claim.
[7] In the case at bar, the Board adequately explained its reasons for doubting the applicant's credibility on the basis of his vague and evasive answers and on the basis of implausibilities and inconsistencies in his claim. It also appears that the Board considered the applicant's explanations and found these unsatisfactory.
[8] The applicant argues that the Board failed to consider certain documents submitted as evidence. However, as a general rule, the Board is presumed to have considered all the elements of the file before rendering its decision (Florea v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] F.C.J. No. 598 (C.A.) (QL)) and it is not necessary that the Board refer to every piece of evidence in its decision (Hassan v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.)).
[9] Finally, a delay in the filing of a refugee claim can have a negative impact on the credibility assessment of the applicant's subjective fear of persecution because it is recognized that a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution would claim refugee status as soon as is practicably possible. In this case, the applicant waited seven months before filing his application and the Board was entitled to consider this delay in its evaluation of the applicant's subjective fear of persecution (see Ibis v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2001] F.C.J. No. 86 (T.D.) (QL)).
[10] Upon a thorough review of the transcripts of the hearing as well as the applicant's Personal Information Form, it is clear that there were significant inconsistencies and implausibilities in the applicant's claim and I am not convinced the Board committed any reviewable error in its disposition of this case. Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 19, 2003
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1530-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: Sergio Eduardo GUARNEROS ROJAS v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 25, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: December 19, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Me Eleanor Comeau FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Andrea Shahin FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Eleanor K. Comeau FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario