Ottawa, Ontario, February 26, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
BETWEEN:
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the Board), dated March 1, 2006, wherein the applicant was found not to be a “Convention refugee” nor a “person in need of protection” within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. The Board also concluded that the claim had no credible basis.
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Armenia, claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of her former common-law partner. The applicant alleges that on a number of occasions he physically and sexually assaulted her and threatened to kill her.
[3] In support of her claim, the applicant submitted medical certificates stating she was hospitalized on two occasions. She also submitted replies to complaints she had lodged with the local police department, the local prosecutor’s office and the national prosecutor’s office. Finally, she submitted a letter from the Women’s Crisis Centre in Yerevan, Armenia stating that she was a client there in May and June of 2005.
[4] The Board’s overall conclusion with respect to the absence of credibility of the applicant is not patently unreasonable. The Board indicated in clear and unmistakable terms why it did not believe the applicant. The Board found that there were a number of inconsistencies between the story given by the applicant at the immigration examination (Immigration Officer Interview Notes, dated September 21, 2005, certified tribunal record at p. 211) and the story contained in the applicant’s Personal Information Form (PIF). It also found that the documentary evidence on Armenia did not support the applicant’s claim that she stayed at a women’s shelter in Yerevan called the Women’s Crisis Centre or her claim that she received free medical treatment. Finally, the Board drew a negative inference from the fact that the applicant’s PIF was very similar to the PIF of another refugee claimant that was translated by the same person and was received by the Immigration Board on the same day as the applicant’s PIF. The applicant’s PIF and the other PIF not only contain similar stories, including basically the same sequence of events, but in many places use identical phrases.
[5] At the immigration examination, the applicant stated that she was hospitalized twice due to stress resulting from her relationship with her partner. In her PIF, the applicant stated that she was hospitalized for 20 days in March 2005 with bruises, a liver contusion and a brain concussion and for 20 days in May 2005 with elbow joint damage and a second degree brain concussion. Given the length of time the applicant claimed to have been hospitalized for and the seriousness of her alleged injuries, it was not unreasonable for the Board to find that this seriously contradicted her earlier statement that she was hospitalized as a result of stress.
[6] The Board was also entitled to draw a negative inference from the fact that the applicant could not explain how she came to receive free medical treatment when the documentary evidence on Armenia indicates that free medical treatment is not generally available.
[7] Similarly, it was not unreasonable for the Board to question the applicant’s claim that she stayed at the Women’s Crisis Centre given the applicant’s inability to explain why the letter from the shelter had a government stamp on it when she claimed the shelter was privately run. Moreover, the Board noted that this shelter was not on the list of women’s shelters in the documentary evidence on Armenia.
[8] While an applicant is not asked to expand on the reasons why he or she is claiming refugee status in Canada before the immigration officer, it was not unreasonable in this case for the Board to find a contradiction between her statement at the immigration examination and her statement in her PIF with respect to when her problems began. When both documents are read as a whole and put into context, it is manifest, in my opinion, that the applicant is telling a very different story the second time, one which has been embellished with grave incidents of persecution that show an important inconsistency with the applicant’s statements at the immigration examination.
[9] As for the Board’s finding that the applicant’s credibility was negatively affected by the fact that her PIF closely resembled another PIF received on the same day as hers, I find the Board’s conclusion was not patently unreasonable given that it had already determined that the applicant was not credible. The Board is entitled to take into consideration the fact that a claimant’s PIF closely resembles a PIF filed by another claimant (Shi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1088). Where the Board does not make a negative credibility finding it may be a reviewable error to make a negative inference from the fact that the applicant’s PIF closely resembled another claimant’s PIF (Bao v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 301); however, where the Board has already made a number of negative inferences about a claimant’s credibility then it is not an error to consider a similar PIF (Liu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 695).
[10] Read as a whole the Board’s decision is not patently unreasonable. No question of general importance is raised in this case.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the judicial review application be dismissed. No question is certified.
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1609-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: GOHAR SARGSYAN v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 20, 2007
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: MARTINEAU J.
APPEARANCES:
Me Luc R. Desmarais FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Patricia Nobl FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Luc R. Desmarais FOR THE APPLICANT
Montreal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada