Date: 20030408
Docket: IMM-2897-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 407
Ottawa, Ontario, April 8, 2003
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
SHAHALA CHOWDHURY
TYSON CHOWDHURY, KIMTY CHOWDHURY,
MARIA CHOWDHURY, AYESHA CHOWDHURY
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated May 23, 2002, wherein the Board determined that the applicants were not Convention refugees.
[2] Shahala Chowdhury (the "applicant") and her children, Tyson, Kimty, Maria and Ayesha, are citizens of Bangladesh. The applicant claims refugee status on the basis of gender related persecution. The claims of the other applicants are based on her claim.
[3] The Board found that the principal applicant was not credible and that she did not meet her onus to show that she had a well-founded fear of persecution. As such, the applicants were not Convention refugees, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[4] It is trite law that this Court is reluctant to interfere with a decision of the Board based on the credibility of a witness, given the Board's ability to assess the witness in oral testimony before it (Ankrah v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 385 (Q.L.)). Where the Board finds a claimant not credible based on implausibility findings which are open to it on the evidence, this Court will not interfere in the decision unless an overriding error has been made by the Board (Oduro v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 66 F.T.R. 106).
[5] The applicant argues that the Board erred in making an adverse credibility finding based on the lack of corroborative evidence. I disagree with the applicant. The Board made its adverse credibility finding not only on the lack of corroborative evidence, but also on the lack of any credible explanation given by the applicant as well as her overall demeanour. The Board highlighted the fact that although the applicant had asked her mother to send over documents, she only requested her deed of marriage and notice of divorce, and not the medical reports. This is peculiar given that the medical reports would have substantiated the applicant's claim of physical abuse. It was reasonable for the Board to draw a negative inference from the lack of evidence to support her allegation.
[6] The applicant further submits that the Board erred in overlooking evidence, the notice of divorce that corroborated the applicant's claim. Again, I disagree with the applicant. The notice of divorce only indicated that the applicant divorced her husband but did not substantiate her claim that she was physically abused by her husband. As such, the Board did not give the notice of divorce much weight. This finding was reasonable in the circumstances.
[7] Regarding the applicant's demeanour, counsel pointed out that the demeanour of a witness is not an infallible index to judge the credibility of the story told, and that the Board erred in using her demeanour to make an adverse credibility finding.
[8] This Court has held that in assessing the reliability of the applicant's testimony, the Board may consider for example, vagueness, hesitation, inconsistencies, contradictions and demeanour. With respect to these types of credibility findings, the Court normally defers to the Board, as it is in the best position to assess the quality of the applicant's testimony (Ezi-Ashi v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1994] F.C.J. No. 401 (Q.L.)). As such, it was open for the Board to make an adverse credibility finding based on the applicant's demeanour.
[9] As to the country reports outlining conditions of women in Bangladesh, the Board is not required to refer to each piece of general documentary evidence regarding the applicant's country, but must simply weigh the totality of the evidence (Iordanov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 145 F.T.R. 289).
[10] In spite of the able arguments from the applicant's counsel, I have not been convinced that the Board ignored evidence or that this is a case in which the Court may interfere with the Board's findings respecting credibility.
[11] For all these reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
J.F.C.C.