PIERO KLEBERTH MATOS QUINTANA Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2011 FC 579

Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20110524 Docket: IMM-5133-10 Citation: 2011 FC 579 [UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, May 24, 2011 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.

Justice Pinard BETWEEN: PIERO KLEBERTH MATOS QUINTANA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by a member of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration andRefugee Board (panel) submitted in accordance with subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27(Act), by Piero Kleberth Matos Quintana (applicant).

The panel found that the applicant was not a refugee or a person in need ofprotection and therefore rejected his refugee claim. [2] The applicant is a citizen of Peru. He was born on January 30, 1991, and was living in Lima. His parents still live in Lima, buthis sister and his two brothers live in Canada and arrived here before he did, as refugees. [3] The panel found that the applicant was not credible because of important omissions and contradictions between his testimonyand an exhibit submitted into evidence, namely, a Peruvian newspaper

article dated January 18, 2008. Because only an excerpt of thearticle had originally been translated, the rest was translated orally during the hearing. Omissions and contradictions led the panel tobelieve that the applicant had not been present for the event at the heart of his claim. [4] The panel also found that the fact that the applicant never sought asylum in the United States during his stay there, which wasclose to three months, undermined his credibility.

It found that the applicant had invented his story in order to come to Canada and joinhis family after his two visa applications had been refused. [5] The only issue is whether the panel’s decision is reasonable. In fact, the standard of review applicable to credibility findings isreasonableness. At paragraph 47 of Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the Supreme Court ofCanada noted that “ . . . reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the

decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes whichare defensible in respect of the facts and law.” [6] After reviewing the evidence and hearing counsel for the parties, the panel’s findings with respect to the contradictions andomissions attributed to the applicant seem generally reasonable. It is clear that the panel was entitled to compare the applicant’stestimony to the information in the newspaper

article in question. The fact that the panel did not interpret this

article in the same way asthe applicant is not an error in itself. [7] I therefore agree with the respondent that, given the obvious lack of credibility with respect to the claim’s central event, it wasnot unreasonable for the panel to attach no probative value to the exhibits submitted by the applicant. To this end, it is important toreproduce the following excerpt from the decision I rendered in docket IMM-3590-95, Satinder Pal Singh v. The Minister of Citizenshipand Immigration of Canada, on October 18, 1996: . . . As the Federal Court of Appeal held in Sheikh v.

Canada, (FCA), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, 244, the perception that anapplicant is not credible on a fundamental element of his claim in fact amounts to a finding that there is no credible evidence sufficient tojustify the refugee claim in question. [8] In particular, there is nothing unreasonable with the way the abduction report and the psychological report were dealt with. Thepanel was entitled to interpret them as it did.

The same can be said for the two reports without letterhead or coat of arms, as the panelnoted that it had specialized knowledge of Peruvian documents and that the documents did not possess these elements. With respect tothe applicant’s two police notices to appear, even though the panel did not find that they were not authentic, I do not find its decision toattach no probative value to them unreasonable. The notices to appear are short and merely state that the applicant must present himselfat the police station to answer questions about the murder.

I do not find, as alleged by the applicant, that these documents necessarilyprove that he was present at the murder. [9] I further find that it was not unreasonable for the panel to find that the applicant’s failure to claim asylum in the United States,where he stayed from April 15 to June 20, 2008, and for which he had a 5-year visa, could be used to undermine his credibility. [10] For all of these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. [11] I agree with counsel for the parties that this is not a case for certification.

JUDGMENT The application for judicial review of a decision by a member of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and RefugeeBoard that the applicant was not a refugee or a person in need of protection according to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration andRefugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 21, is dismissed. “Yvon Pinard” Judge Certified true translation Janine Anderson, Translator

FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-5133-10 STYLE OF CAUSE: PIERO KLEBERTH MATOS QUINTANA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal , Quebec DATE OF HEARING: April 14, 2011 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: Pinard J. DATED: May 24, 2011 APPEARANCES : Claudette Menghile FOR THE APPLICANT Margarita Tzavelakos FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Claudette Menghile FOR THE APPLICANT Montréal, Quebec Myles J. Kirvan FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada