Date: 20000907
Docket: IMM-6158-99
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000
Before: J.E. DUBÉJ.
Between:
Animesh Kumar ROY
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20000907
Docket: IMM-6158-99
BETWEEN:
Animesh Kumar ROY
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉJ.
[1] This application for judicial review is from a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration Board ("the Refugee Division") on January 14, 2000 dismissing the plaintiff's refugee application.
[2] The plaintiff is a citizen of Bangladesh who is 26 years old. He claimed refugee status, alleging a well-founded fear of persecution for his religious activities and membership in the Hindu community.
[3] In its decision, the Refugee Division noted that the plaintiff based his allegation of persecution primarily on two events.
[4] First of all, in December 1997 the plaintiff and five other young Hindus went to a village to protect a girl and her family from Moslem fundamentalists who were threatening to kidnap her. They awaited the attack for five days. The fundamentalists did not come.
[5] The other event occurred on July 27, 1998 when the plaintiff and several other young Hindus formed a security group to protect Hindus at a festival at a temple. A group of Moslem hoodlums came to the festival, armed with long swords. The plaintiff fled to the back of the temple and escaped to his home.
[6] In its analysis of the facts, the Refugee Division explained why it did not attach any credibility to the plaintiff's story. To begin with, the plaintiff did not even mention the name of his religion, the fundamental reason for his application, on the Personal Information Form ("PIF"). Second, the plaintiff testified vaguely and showed his lack of knowledge of the Hindu religion. Third, the plaintiff's story was not credible because of its inconsistency with the information contained in the documentary evidence which was found to be credible and trustworthy by the panel. Fourth, the Refugee Division concluded that on the documentary evidence in the record the situation of the Hindu minority in Bangladesh involved discrimination, but not persecution. Fifth, in view of the limited extent of the plaintiff's responsibilities the Refugee Division concluded that he could not have been personally targeted for his activities. Sixth, the Tribunal did not believe that the plaintiff was as involved in his community as he claimed.
[7] A review of the hearing transcript clearly established that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the Hindu religion and even demonstrated his arrogance before the panel.
[8] There is abundant and consistent precedent to the effect that it is up to the Refugee Division, as a specialized tribunal, to assess the credibility of witnesses and of the evidence submitted.[1] The panel is also justified in judging the plaintiff's credibility on the basis of criteria such as rationality and common sense.[2] Further, the panel must assess the credibility of a claimant's testimony in light of the documentary evidence.[3]
[9] The plaintiff objected that the panel had not mentioned in its reasons the fact that his brother's claim was approved on August 22, 1996. It should be noted that every claim must be decided on its own merits. The factors and events which operate in favour of one claim are not necessarily present in another claim, even if a member of the same family is in question. In the case at bar, the major events on which the claim of the plaintiff at bar is based took place in December 1997 (regarding the protection of the girl) and in July 1998 (regarding the Moslem fundamentalists at the religious festival) [and] are both events subsequent to the plaintiff's brother's claim.
[10] Consequently, this application for judicial review cannot be allowed. The parties were agreed that there is no question of general importance here to be certified.
Judge
OTTAWA, Ontario
September 7, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: IMM-6158-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANIMESH KUMAR ROY v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: SEP. 1, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: DUBÉ J.
DATED: SEP. 7, 2000
APPEARANCES:
DIANE-NANCY DOREY FOR THE APPLICANT
LISA MAZIADE FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
JOSEPH W. ALLEN FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada