Date: 20031219
Docket: IMM-1830-03
Citation: 2003 FC 1487
Entre:
VINCENTE CAZARES GONZALEZ
Demandeur
- et -
LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ
ET DE L'IMMIGRATION
Défendeur
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 19, 2003, wherein the Board found, on the basis of the applicant's lack of credibility, that the latter 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.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Mexico and he alleges a well-founded fear of persecution by his maternal uncle due to his belonging to a particular social group, homosexuals.
[3] The applicant submits that the Board's credibility findings are unreasonable and should be set aside because they are arbitrary, capricious and made without regard to all the evidence.
[4] 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). 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.) (1993), 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.)).
[5] Furthermore, as the Federal Court of Appeal has stated in Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 at 244, a 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 for that claim.
[6] In the case at bar, even though I might have appreciated the circumstances differently, I am not convinced that the Board made patently unreasonable errors or that it acted arbitrarily in reaching its decision. The Board adequately explained its reasons for doubting the applicant's credibility on the basis of inconsistencies and the implausibility of the applicant's claim that he is homosexual. The fact that the Board did not believe that the applicant is homosexual is central to the claim. Therefore, pursuant to the principles expressed in Sheikh, supra, the Board could rely on its finding that the applicant's homosexuality is not credible in order to reject the applicant's entire claim.
[7] Upon a thorough review of the transcript of the hearing and the applicant's Personal Information Form, it is clear that there were significant inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence. Consequently, as the Board committed no reviewable error in its disposition of this case, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 19, 2003
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1830-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: VINCENTE CAZARES GONZALEZ v. LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'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 Peter F. Guarnieri FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Suzon Létourneau FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Lata & Guarnieri FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario