Date: 20030110
Docket: IMM-1703-01
Neutral Citation: 2003 FCT 7
Between:
Jahangir Alam KHANDAKER
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated March 8, 2001, determining him not to be a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
The applicant was born in Dhaka, in a region known at that time as East Pakistan. He is a member of the Bihari, Urdu-speaking Muslims. He is claiming refugee status on the grounds of race, as a Bihari living in Bangladesh.
The Board's determination reads as follows, at page 3 of the decision:
After reviewing all of the evidence adduced, I find that the claimant has not met the burden which is his to establish, with credible and trustworthy evidence, that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh. I am aware that statements given under oath or solemn declaration are considered true, unless there is good reason to doubt the veracity of the statements. My analysis follows.
The Board supports its decision with the following reasons:
- the letters provided by the applicant in support of his claim do not mention that he had a leadership role or co-ordinating role within the Stranded Pakistanis General Repatriation Committee (the "SPGRC"), as the applicant contends. The letters can only be used as proof that he was a resident of the Geneva Camp in Dhaka, but cannot be given any weight with respect to any role the applicant played in the SPGRC;
- the applicant's knowledge of the SPGRC was very limited; it is implausible that someone who had allegedly been an active member since 1996 and assumed a leadership role as a local co-ordinator would not know more about the structural problems within the organization;
- on arrival at the Port of Entry ("POE"), the applicant denied membership in any organization, but now alleges it was because of his membership in the SPGRC that he had to leave the country. His explanation of his denial, that he thought he had been asked about membership in a political organization, is unsatisfactory, and the inconsistency between the POE notes and the information in his Personal Information Form ("PIF") are important and undermine his credibility;
- the inconsistencies between the POE notes and the applicant's PIF with respect to his being wanted by the police further undermine his credibility:
a) the PIF indicates that the applicant only knew the police were looking for him after he came to Canada, whereas his testimony indicates that he knew the police were looking for him on August 6th, before he left Bangladesh. He had also indicated at the POE that he was not wanted by the police;
b) when questioned on the inconsistencies, the applicant indicated that his brother had told him that the police had been looking for him on August 6th, but not that they were going to arrest him. However, on the balance of probabilities, the Board did not believe the claimant was wanted by the police.
The Board's decision was based on a finding of lack of credibility on the part of the applicant. The applicant submits that most of the Board's findings do not rest on solid evidentiary ground. On the issue of credibility, I stated as follows in Berroteram v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (September 29, 1999), IMM-6237-98:
[TRANSLATION]
[4] With respect to credibility and the assessment of the facts, it should also be recalled that this Court cannot substitute its decision for that of such a tribunal when, as in the instant case, the applicants have failed to establish that the tribunal based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act). The applicants were required to establish that their fear of persecution was well founded. I have reviewed the evidence before the Refugee Division and am not convinced that the inferences drawn by this specialized panel could not reasonably have been drawn (Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315). Finally, as the Federal Court of Appeal stated in Sheikh v. Canada, [1990] 3 F.C. 238, at page 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 amounts to a finding that there is no credible evidence for that claim.
The Board is a specialized tribunal which can consider the plausibility and credibility of a testimony so long as the inferences which it draws from it are not unreasonable (Aguebor, supra) and its grounds are explained clearly and comprehensibly (Hilo v. M.E.I. (1991), 5 Imm.L.R. (2d) 199 (F.C.A.)).
In this case, the explanations given by the Board are clear and comprehensible, and the inferences which it drew from the applicant's testimony are not unreasonable.
The Board did not reject the letters outright, but accepted them as proof that the applicant had been resident in the Geneva Camp. It was reasonable for the Board not to consider them proof of the applicant's claim of persecution, as they do not address his participation in the SPGRC or the attacks he may have suffered as a result.
The Board was equally justified in doubting the applicant's knowledge of the SPGRC. Upon reviewing the transcript of the hearing as well as the PIF of the applicant, it is clear that there were omissions and inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, and, without adopting the Board's analysis in its entirety, it was not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the omissions and inconsistencies undermined the applicant's credibility.
In my opinion, the Board committed no reviewable error in its disposition of this case. Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
January 10, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1703-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Jahangir Alam KHANDAKER v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 20, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: January 10, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Me Diane Doray FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Jocelyne Murphy FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Diane N. Doray FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario