Date: 19980917
Docket: IMM-4491-97
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1998
| Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NADON |
Between:
MANYEMBWA THADD NTAGARA
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
Date: 19980917
Docket: IMM-4491-97
Between:
MANYEMBWA THADD NTAGARA
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON, J.:
[1] The plaintiff is asking the Court to set aside the decision rendered on September 5, 1997 by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Division"). The Division ruled that the plaintiff was not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The plaintiff is a citizen of Zaire and a member of the Tutsis tribe. He claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution in the Democratic Republic of the Congo-Zaire because of his race or ethnic origin and his political beliefs. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that if he were to return to his country he would be persecuted by ordinary citizens of Zaire because he is Tutsi and because the man who occupies his property in Kinshasa has spread rumours that the plaintiff is a supporter of Mobutu.
[3] The man occupying the plaintiff"s property is said to be a friend of the plaintiff, a general under the Mobutu regime. It appears that the general is now associated with the Kabila regime, which is now in power, and is working in the security field.
[4] The plaintiff"s fear resulting from the rumours being spread about him by the general results from information he is alleged to have received from a woman he knows in the Ottawa area who was previously living in Zaire. This woman is said to have been a neighbour of the plaintiff in Kinshasa. She obtained the information in Brazzaville from persons who had crossed the Congo. The Division rejected this evidence on the ground that it was "[Translation ] third or fourth hand information at best". The Division stated that the plaintiff had made no effort to "[Translation ] confirm this information independently". I see no error on the part of the Division in deciding as it did on this point.
[5] As to the plaintiff"s fear of being persecuted because he is Tutsi, the Division found that there was no risk of persecution for the plaintiff if he were to return to live in Kinshasa. Here is what the Division said on this point:
[Translation]
As a Tutsi, the plaintiff may have had reason to fear the anger of ordinary citizens in Kinshasa in early 1996; it is therefore understandable that he chose not to return there when he left South Africa after being nonsuited in an application for permanent status in that country. However, the situation has been radically transformed since the middle of May 1997, when the forces under the command of Laurent Kabila overthrew President Mobutu and destroyed his regime. The evidence before us establishes that the Kabila regime has many contacts with the Tutsis both inside and outside the DRC-Z and that the Tutsis have helped Kabila take power and retain it. Some people even go so far as to claim that the Tutsi leaders in Rwanda are exerting undue influence over the Kabila government. There is therefore no animosity directed by the Government against the Tutsis in Kinshasa. Furthermore, judging from a reply to a request for information, there is no information about problems that the Tutsis in Kinshasa might be having at the hands of the general public. Given the large number of international observers who can provide us with information, it would certainly have been noted if the Tutsis were having problems in Kinshasa simply because they are Tutsis. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the applicant"s fear of persecution in Kinshasa because he is a Tutsi is without foundation.
[6] After noting that there was a danger for the Tutsis in Kinshasa in 1996, the Division, finding nothing in the documentation that would indicate the existence of such danger in September 1997, concluded that the applicant"s fear under this head was without foundation. The documentation on the record indicates that there were some problems for the Tutsis in Kinshasa in November 1996. However, the documentation is silent about September 1997. There is no indication in it that the Tutsis are being persecuted, or in danger of being persecuted, by the population.
[7] The Division had to assess the applicant"s fear of persecution as of the date of the hearing, which occurred on September 5, 1997. In my opinion, having regard for the evidence, the Division"s decision is not unreasonable.
[8] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
MARC NADON
J.
Ottawa, Ontario
September 17, 1998
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE: MANYEMBWA THADD NTAGARA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
| PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA, ONTARIO |
| DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 11, 1998 |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF NADON J.
| DATED: SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 |
APPEARANCES:
NICOLE GOULET FOR THE APPLICANT
JAN BRONGERS FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
NICOLE GOULET FOR THE APPLICANT
HULL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Email this Content