Digests

Ismael v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

IMM-4724-02

2003 FC 1038, Blais J.

8/9/03

16 pp.

Judicial review of decision by Refugee Protection Division of Immigration and Refugee Board (Tribunal) that applicant not Convention refugee under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Act), s. 96 or person in need of protection under Act, s. 97--Applicant citizen of Republic of Guinea, born on January 1, 1977, in Conakry--Whether panel made error warranting intervention of Court in finding applicant not Convention refugee--In order to determine whether panel erred in finding applicant not credible or finding based on inconsistencies, alleged contradictions, documentary evidence in record must be reviewed--From transcript, appears applicant answered to best of his knowledge--Answers, for most part, consistent and clear--Tribunal, rather, appeared not to understand and even to misconstrue applicant's answers-- Certain points misinterpreted or contradicted, without reason, by Tribunal--Nothing implausible about applicant's claim member of Party for Renewal and Progress (PRP) since 1997, although this party merged with second one, Union for the New Republic (UNR), to form third, Union for Progress and Renewal (UPR) in 1998--Applicant gave credible explanation--Tribunal determined that applicant did not answer questions regarding his uncle, namely that, according to panel, uncle member of Party for Unity and Progress (PUP) rather than UPR--Seems completely plausible that Boubacar Diallo, listed as member of PUP in electoral document different person--This statement even more relevant in light of number of people with same name on list--From reading transcript of hearing and documentary evidence, seems clear that panel made enough unreasonable inferences from applicant's testimony to attract intervention of this Court--Further, panel found it implausible that applicant could have passed through airport inspections without difficulty--Applicant alleged travelled with French passport--Says he destroyed passport on advice of individual who gave it to him--Hugessen J.A., in Attakora v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1987), 99 N.R. 168 (F.C.A.), stated that "I can only conclude that the Board's insistence upon its significance is founded upon some erroneous view of the law. Does the Board think that only persons who arrive here with their travel documents in order can be refugees? Or that those who arrive with false documents have some obligation to preserve them?"--With regard to panel's finding that applicant "not subject either to risk to his life or to risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment" and that "no danger of torture in the Republic of Guinea," passage from the U.S. Department of State Report, issued March 4, 2002, establishing opposite--Application for judicial review allowed, file to be returned to IRB for reconsideration by differently constituted Tribunal, in light of this decision-- Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, ss. 96, 97.