Date: 20010115
Docket: IMM-4082-99
BETWEEN:
BALWINDER SINGH
Applicant,
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Board (the "Board") rendered on August 5, 19991, pursuant to which the Board concluded that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.
[2] The applicant, born on September 20, 1968, is a citizen of India. He claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his political opinions and his membership in a particular social group. He arrived in Canada on August 28, 1998, and claimed refugee status on September 1, 1998.
[3] Based on the evidence before it and, in particular, on the documentary evidence, the Board had serious doubts as to the credibility of the applicant's story. In coming to that view, the Board considered the following: that the applicant did not belong to any political party or organization; that although searches had been conducted by the police in his village in the past, there had not been any problems related to terrorism or militancy; that since 1995, there was peace in the Punjab, and; that the police were only interested in "high profile" people, insofar as militancy and terrorism were concerned.
[4] Concerning the applicant's arrest on February 7, 1997, the Board did not believe that this had actually occurred. The Board went on to say that if such an arrest had occurred, the purpose thereof must have been extortion, bearing in mind that the applicant's father was a wealthy man.
[5] I have carefully read all of the evidence, including the documentary evidence and the applicant's oral testimony, and I cannot conclude that the Board made any error, either of fact or of law, which would allow me to intervene. In Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1994), 160 N.R. 315, the Federal Court of Appeal made it clear that this Court should not lightly interfere with Board decisions regarding the plausibility of evidence and the credibility of an applicant's story. At paragraph 4, pages 316-317, Décary J.A., speaking for the Court, made the following remarks:
| [4] 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 in a better position that 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 out intervention, the 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 have reasonably been drawn. In this case, the appellant has not discharged that burden. |
[6] On my reading and understanding of the evidence, I cannot conclude that the Board's findings and its inferences are so unreasonable so as to justify intervention by this Court.
[7] Consequently, this application for judicial review shall be dismissed.
Marc Nadon
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
January 15, 2001.
__________________1 The reasons were given by the Board immediately after the completion of the hearing on August 5, 1999. However, these reasons were signed on August 19, 1999.