Date: 20031107
Docket: IMM-4730-02
Citation: 2003 FC 1291
Between:
MAHABUB ALAM Shahin,
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 September 10, 2002, wherein the Board found the applicant not to be a Convention refugee as defined in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "Act") or a "person in need of protection" as defined in section 97 of the Act.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He alleges a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinions.
[3] The Board found that the applicant's credibility and his well-founded fear of persecution were undermined by the presence of a number of discrepancies and omissions in his testimony.
[4] With respect to questions of credibility and appreciation of facts, 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 (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.C.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] As the Federal Court of Appeal has stated in Sheikh v. Canada (M.C.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 effectively may amount to a finding that there is no credible evidence for that claim.
[6] In the case at bar, I am not convinced that the Board based its decision on patently unreasonable errors or that it acted arbitrarily in reaching its decision. Without adopting the Board's analysis in its entirety, I am satisfied that the latter generally gave sufficiently clear and comprehensible reasons for doubting the applicant's credibility on the basis of omissions in the Port of Entry notes, the implausibility of information regarding the political demonstration and the change in the political situation in Bangladesh.
[7] On the last point, the applicant submits that the Board erred in finding that his fear of persecution has ceased to exist due to the fact that the political party of which he is a member is currently in power in Bangladesh. In that regard, it is useful to consider the following passage pertaining to a similar case of a BNP party member who claimed to fear persecution by the Awami League, namely Ahmed v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2003 FCT 470, [2003] F.C.J. No. 629 (T.D.) (QL):
[6] Third, the restriction mentioned in the definition of "refugee" excludes a person who has ceased to be a Convention refugee . . . such as when the reasons for the person's fear of persecution ceases to exist. Accordingly, political developments in a claimant's country of origin which have removed the reason for his fear of persecution are relevant to whether that person can validly maintain that he is a Convention refugee. The question then is not whether the claimant had reason to fear persecution in the past, but whether if he still has a well-founded fear of persecution . . .
[8] In this case, the applicant has not established that he would continue to fear persecution at the hands of the Awami League if he were to return to Bangladesh. Furthermore, due to contradictions in his testimony, it was difficult to identify the source of his fear. As a result, the Board acted reasonably in concluding that the applicant has failed to establish his fear of persecution.
[9] In my opinion, the Board committed no reviewable error in its disposition of this case and the application for judicial review is rejected.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 7, 2003
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4730-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: MAHABUB ALAM Shahin c. LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 8, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: November 7, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Me Viken G. Artinian FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Michèle Joubert FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Joseph W. Allen FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario