Ottawa, Ontario, February 7, 2006
BETWEEN:
NARIMAN ZAKY
GAK ALBER ADLY
GORGET ALBER ADLY
GOMANA ALBER ADLY
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Alber Guirguis, Ms. Nariman Zaky and their three children arrived in Canada in 2004 after failing to obtain asylum in the United States. The family had fled Egypt in 2000. They alleged that Muslim fundamentalists had mistreated them there because of their Coptic faith. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board considered the applicants' claim for refugee protection but dismissed it.
[2] The applicants argue that the Board erred in making adverse credibility findings against them, overlooking their explanation for the delay in claiming asylum in the United States, and failing to conduct a thorough analysis of the documentary evidence. They ask me to order a new hearing before a different panel of the Board. However, I can find no basis on which to overturn the Board's decision and, therefore, must dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issues
1. Did the Board err in concluding that the applicants' version of events was not credible?
2. Did the Board overlook the applicants' explanation for the delay in claiming asylum in the United States?
3. Did the Board fail to conduct a proper analysis of the documentary evidence?
II. Analysis
A. Did the Board err in concluding that the applicants' version of events was not credible?
[3] I can overturn the Board's credibility findings only if they were unsupported by the evidence.
[4] The applicants challenge four of the grounds on which the Board relied when it concluded that they had not presented a true picture of their experiences in Egypt. I note that there are other grounds for the Board's conclusion that the applicants do not contest.
(i) The applicants' reasons for moving to Jordan
[5] Ms. Zaky testified that the family fled to Jordan in 1981 because they feared for their safety after the El-Zawia El-Hamra massacre. In her written narrative, Ms. Zaky gave a somewhat different sequence of events. She stated that, after the massacre, the family moved to a different district of Cairo, called Al-Alzton. Later, when Mr. Guirguis found a job in Jordan, the family moved there.
[6] The Board noted this variation in the evidence and characterized it to be one of a number of embellishments in the applicants' story. There was a difference between the two versions, albeit not a dramatic one, and I cannot fault the Board for taking note of it in its overall assessment of the applicants' credibility.
(ii) Stabbing of son
[7] Mr. Guirguis mentioned in his written narrative that his son had been stabbed by fundamentalists in January 2000. Originally, Ms. Zaky did not mention the stabbing. However, she amended her written narrative just before the hearing to include a reference to it. The Board drew a negative inference from her failure to describe such a significant event at the outset.
[8] Again, I cannot fault the Board for the manner in which it treated this evidence.
[9] I do note, however, that the Board erred when it stated that the applicants did not provide a corroborating medical report of the stabbing. It appears from the transcript that the Board was shown a medical report at the hearing. For some reason, it appears that the report was not made an exhibit. In turn, the Board overlooked it in its reasons. Had the absence of that document figured more prominently in the Board's credibility assessment, this error might have provided grounds to be concerned about the reasonableness of the Board's conclusion. In the circumstances, and in light of the evidence as a whole, the Board's error does not justify overturning its decision.
(iii) Kidnapping threats
[10] At the port of entry, Mr. Guirguis mentioned that he was afraid that Muslim fundamentalists might kidnap his daughter. At that time, Ms. Zaky did not express this concern, although later, in her written narrative, she said that the family had received actual threats of kidnapping. The daughter went even further, stating that she had been the victim of many attempted kidnappings.
[11] The Board took note of these variations in the applicants' statements and concluded that the evidence pertaining to the risk of kidnapping was unreliable. Again, I cannot fault the Board for drawing a negative inference from inconsistencies in the evidence before it.
(iv) "Slapping" versus "beating"
[12] In her written narrative, Ms. Zaky stated that she had been "beaten" and insulted by fundamentalists in January 2000. In her oral testimony, she said that she had been "slapped" and insulted. The Board noted that a beating was not the same as being slapped and, again, concluded that the discrepancy weakened the applicants' credibility.
[13] The difference between a "beating" and a "slapping" is real, but not wide. In my view, the Board was entitled to take note of this difference, but not to overemphasize its magnitude. From my reading of its reasons, it did not do so.
[14] In my view, the Board's assessment of the applicants' credibility was based on the evidence before it and, therefore, I cannot find any basis for disturbing it.
B. Did the Board overlook the applicants' explanation for the delay in claiming asylum in the United States?
[15] After the applicants arrived in the United Sates, they waited almost a year before seeking asylum there. Their claims were rejected in 2003, which prompted them to seek refugee protection in Canada. The Board was not satisfied with the applicants' explanation for the delay - that they did not know how to go about making a claim for asylum.
[16] The Board can clearly take account of delay in determining whether refugee claimants have behaved in a manner that is inconsistent with a genuine fear of persecution. Here, the Board considered the magnitude of the delay and the applicants' explanation for it. It was simply one factor among many that the Board considered in concluding that the applicants had provided insufficient evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution. I see no error in the Board's approach.
C. Did the Board fail to conduct a proper analysis of the documentary evidence?
[17] The Board cited documentary evidence that supported the applicants' allegation that Coptic girls are at risk of kidnapping in Egypt. It also considered the opinion of a sociologist who stated that the term "kidnapping" is often used to refer to the conversion of young Copts to Islam, even if it is voluntary. The Board concluded that the documentary evidence suggested that Egyptian Copts generally face discrimination, not persecution, or cruel and unusual treatment.
[18] The applicants suggest that the Board should have placed greater emphasis on the documentary evidence supporting their allegations and discounted the opinion it cited to the contrary. This is simply a question of the appropriate weight to be given to the evidence, which is not a determination this Court can second-guess on judicial review. The Board's conclusion found support in the documentary evidence. It cannot be overturned simply because the applicants take a different view of that evidence.
[19] Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No question of general importance is stated.
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-714-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: ALBER GUIRGUIS, ET AL v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, ON.
DATE OF HEARING: December 14, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
APPEARANCES:
Hart A. Kaminker FOR THE APPLICANTS
Leena Jaakkimainen FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Hart A. Kaminker FOR THE APPLICANTS Toronto, ON
tOTTT
Toronto, ON FOR THE RESPONDENT