Date: 19990430
Docket: IMM-717-98
Ottawa, Ontario, April 30, 1999
Before: Pinard J.
Between:
ISAAK FRISHER,
MICHAEL FRISHER,
MAKSIM FRISHER,
MARINA FRISHER,
Applicants,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
ORDER
The application for judicial review from the decision rendered by the Convention Refugee Determination Division on January 28, 1998, determining that the applicants are not Convention refugees, is dismissed.
| YVON PINARD JUDGE |
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
Date: 19990430
Docket: IMM-717-98
Between:
ISAAK FRISHER,
MICHAEL FRISHER,
MAKSIM FRISHER,
MARINA FRISHER,
Applicants,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] The application for judicial review is from a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division on January 28, 1998 determining that the applicants Isaak Frisher, his wife Marina Frisher and their sons Michael and Maksim Frisher were not Convention refugees. The applicants are nationals of Israel, and base their claim primarily on grounds of religion and nationality.
[2] The tribunal's decision was based quite simply on the fact that the applicants lacked credibility:
| [TRANSLATION] |
| After analysing all the evidence, both oral and documentary, the tribunal concludes that the claimants are not "Convention refugees" for the following reasons. |
| The tribunal dismissed overall the claimants" testimony, as they seemed to lack credibility when they depicted Israel as a country where discrimination against non-Jewish immigrants was rampant and the authorities refused to help or protect them. |
[3] As in the absence of clear and persuasive evidence to the contrary the Court must assume that the Refugee Division considered all the evidence (see Hassan1), and since the Refugee Division was entitled to attach greater significance to the documentary evidence with which it confronted the applicants (see Zhou2), I am not persuaded on reviewing the evidence that such a specialized tribunal could not have reasonably concluded as it did (see Aguebor3).
[4] Where credibility and the weighing of facts are concerned, it is not for this Court to usurp the function of the administrative tribunal when, as here, the applicants have failed to show that the decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. The Refugee Division's perception that the applicants were not credible in fact amounts to a conclusion that there was no credible evidence to justify their claim to refugee status (see Sheikh4).
[5] As to the conscientious objection of the claimant Maksim Frisher, whose credibility also received a negative assessment by the tribunal, it is worth noting, as I have already had occasion to do,5 what my colleague Tremblay-Lamer J. said in Lishchenko v. M.E.I. (January 9, 1996), IMM-803-95, in paragraph 9:
| As for the military service, the Court concluded in Talman v. Canada (M.E.I.) [(1995), 93 F.T.R. 266; see also Zolfagharkhani c. M.E.I. (1993), 155 N.R. 311] that the punishment for failing to complete compulsory military service in Israel did not constitute persecution, but rather prosecution for failing to comply with a law of general application. |
[6] For these reasons the application for judicial review is dismissed.
| YVON PINARD JUDGE |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 30, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT No.: IMM-717-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ISAAK FRISHER et al. v. |
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
| DATE OF HEARING: March 30, 1999 |
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: April 30, 1999
APPEARANCES:
| Yves Gravel FOR THE APPLICANT |
| Josée Paquin FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Yves Gravel FOR THE APPLICANT |
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________1 Hassan v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1992), 147 N.R. 317, at 318.
2 Zhou v. M.C.I. (July 18, 1994), A-492-91 (F.C.A.).
3 Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315, at 316 and 317.
4 Sheikh v. Canada, [1990] 3 F.C. 238, at 244.
5 See Kudriavtsev et al. v. M.C.I. (October 17, 1997), IMM-3896-96 and Yagadaev et al. v. M.C.I. (October 17, 1997), IMM-3898-96.