JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] This is an application for judicial review of a negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], who found the Applicant had not sufficiently established his identity as a 19-year-old citizen of Ghana (14 at the time he filed his refugee claim and 17 at the time of his hearing before the RPD), and rejected his refugee claim.

I. Background

[2] The Applicant applied for refugee status using his Ghanian birth certificate, health card, and school records as proof of his identity. He claims he fears persecution in Ghana as a gay man.

[3] Considering the Applicant was a minor at the time of his hearing, he was assigned a designated representative through a program for the assistance and integration of refugee claimants since May of 2023.

II. Decision under Review

[4] Relying on section 106 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. [IRPA], the RPD found that the Applicant had not sufficiently provided proof of his identity.

[5] The Applicant had filed his birth certificate, health insurance card, and school records. These records were all found to be inauthentic based on objective evidence, testimony of the Applicant, and logical inconsistencies inherent to the documents themselves.

[6] The birth certificate was marked as having been registered on January 5, 2023, after the Applicant had left Ghana, and years after his birth was allegedly registered for the first time by his parents. Objective evidence relied on by the RPD rather indicates that the date of registration never changes. If the Applicants’ birth was properly registered by his parents, as alleged by the Applicant himself at the hearing, then the date of registration on an authentic birth certificate would have been in 2006, not in 2023. When the decision maker flagged this concern to the Applicant, the Applicant was unable to provide any meaningful details surrounding the certification of his birth certificate – only that it was a group of friends in the LGBTQ community who helped him with the process. The Applicant was unable to provide any information concerning these friends, other than they all use the nickname “opoo.” The RPD member found that the lack of details did not alleviate his concerns regarding the birth certificate.

[7] As to the Applicant’s health card issued after the Applicant had entered Canada, it presents the Applicant’s name, date of birth, sex, membership number, date of issue, and picture. However, the RPD notes that it does not have any additional security features such as holograms or biometric data that would be expected in an identity document. In addition, the objective evidence states that one does not need to be a citizen of Ghana to hold a health card and, according to the Ghanaian Supreme Court, it is an insufficient proof of identity to be registered on the voters’ list. As such, the RPD found that it does not establish the Applicant’s identity as a citizen of Ghana.

[8] The Applicant testified that he used his passport to travel from Ghana to Brazil, but he lost it along with other important documents while crossing Panama. However, he did not know what these important documents were, just that the same group of LGBTQ friends helped him obtain them.

[9] Finally, the RPD found that the school records under the Applicant’s name did not contain sufficient security features or personal details to consider them as robust identity documents capable of establishing the Applicant’s identity on their own.

[10] Having reviewed the evidence, the RPD summarized its finding in the following terms:

[35] Having carefully considered the claimant’s testimony and documents, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that his evidence as to his identity is neither credible nor trustworthy. As a result of the various deficiencies in the claimant’s testimony and evidence, I cannot say on a balance of probabilities who the claimant is, where he is from, how old he might be, or whether he has suffered persecution as alleged. I therefore find that the claimant has failed to provide sufficient credible evidence to establish his identity as a national of Ghana.

III. Issue and Standard of Review

[11] The sole issue raised by this application for judicial review is whether the RPD decision bears the attributes of reasonableness as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

[12] The Court’s role is therefore to examine the underlying decision and determine whether it is “based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” (Vavilov at para 85). In conducting a reasonableness analysis, the Court must respect the role of the officers as decision-makers in this regard, as they have specialized expertise, while it is the Applicants’ role to demonstrate that the decision itself was unreasonable (Vavilov at para 75).

IV. Analysis

[13] The Applicant submits that the decision is unreasonable as the RPD failed to consider the overall context in which these documents were being produced, a developing nation with a relatively unreliable public administration system.

[14] With respect to the birth certificate, the Applicant argues that the RPD failed to consider a portion of the National Documentation Package [NDP] for Ghana, which highlights how there are two types of birth certificates in Ghana: birth certificates and Certified Copies of Entry into Registry of Births. The former is issued to children before they reach 12 months of age, while parents can apply for the latter at any time. Since the Applicant filed a Certified Copy of Entry in Registrar of Births, this could reasonably explain why it was issued long after his birth was registered.

[15] Respectfully, I disagree with the Applicant. In my view, the Applicant is seeking to rewrite the testimony he gave to the RPD, to make the decision seem unreasonable. The Applicant states he did not testify that he had knowledge of his parents formally registering his birth with the Registry of Births. He states in his testimony that in Ghana, when a child is born, the parents “do the registration” to get a birth certificate. However, if it was the case that his birth was not registered by his parents when he was young, why would the Applicant have had an old handwritten birth certificate in his possession (which he allegedly lost)?

[16] I do not think either that the RPD conflated one type of birth certificate for the other. The RPD referred to the proper section of the NDP to assess the validity of the birth certificate. The objective evidence is clear that the date of registration never changes. The date of issuance might be different, not the date of registration.

[17] When this is added to the vague testimony of the Applicant regarding his group of friends who allegedly helped him obtain the document, it provides support for the decision. The Applicant was unable to provide information on any of his friends other than they all used “opoo” as a nickname.

[18] In my view, it was reasonable for the RPD to disregard the birth certificate filed by the Applicant and to find that it did not establish his identity as a 17-year-old Ghanaian.

[19] Regarding the health card, the Applicant submits that the RPD’s negative findings fail to appreciate the context in which the card was issued. According to the Applicant, the RPD should have considered that Ghana is still considered a developing nation, with a wholly different administrative system than the one found in Canada. This should have been considered before questioning the lack of security features on the card, together with the fact that it was issued after the Applicant entered Canada.

[20] Again, I disagree with the Applicant. In my view, the RPD reasonably found that this card does not establish the Applicant’s national identity as a citizen of Ghana, as it can be obtained by all residents of the country whether they are citizens or not. The RPD also considered the unclear circumstances surrounding the loss of the Applicant’s original health card and the way his new card was obtained, and found that it was, more likely than not, obtained irregularly. The RPD is entitled to assess the Applicant’s explanation as to why he was unable to produce the old health card, and to consider the fact that the new card was issued without being physically present, much less presenting any identity documents in support of the application.

[21] The RPD assessed all the evidence and provided sufficient reasons to find that the health card did not provide proof of the Applicant’s identity as a young Ghanaian.

[22] In light of the above findings, it was reasonable for the RPD to find that school records, in and of themselves, did not contain sufficient security features or personal details to consider them strong documents capable of establishing the Applicant’s identity on their own. They do not contain any biographical information about the Applicant aside from his name.

[23] The RPD can assess and evaluate the evidence before it and, in the absent exceptional circumstances, this Court will not interfere with its factual findings (Vavilov at para 125). Its assessment and weighing of the evidence should not be unduly reconsidered and substituted on judicial review (Vavilov at para 125; Braveus v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1153 at para 19; Konga Ntenda v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 437 at para 5;).

[24] In my view, the poor quality of the documentary evidence combined with the Applicant’s vague testimony were sufficient reasons not to be satisfied that the Applicant had proved his identity.

[25] To obtain the refugee status in Canada, an applicant must establish his or her identity on a balance of probabilities, and failure to do so is fatal to the claim (Terganus v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 903 at para 22).

[26] In the case at bar, the RPD found that all the documents produced to support the Applicants’ identity were inauthentic. This is a reasonable decision, as the RPD rightfully pointed to inconsistencies in the Applicant’s testimony and conflicting logical foundations of the documents submitted, particularly considering the nature of the documents provided by the Applicant.

V. Conclusion

[27] The Applicant has not convinced me that the Court’s intervention is warranted. As a result, his application for judicial review is dismissed.

[28] The parties have suggested no question of general importance for certification and no such question arises from the facts of this case.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-18339-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that :

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. No question of general importance is certified.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES :

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: