Date: 20030403
Docket: IMM-5510-01
Citation: 2003 FCT 399
Montréal, Quebec, April 3, 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIMON NOËL
BETWEEN:
BRUNO BADY-BADILA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("CRDD"), dated November 6, 2001, that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.
[2] The applicant was born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo ("DRC") of a Guinean mother and a Congolese father. He alleges a fear of persecution based on his perceived political opinions because his father and his uncle, members of the U.P.A.D.S., were "Féticheurs" [medicine men] and cared for influential politicians. After the civil war, those who had worked closely with persons in authority in the former regime were apparently persecuted.
[3] The CRDD rejected the applicant's claim on the ground that he had Guinean nationality and could therefore obtain the necessary protection from that country. The applicant contends, as his first argument, that the CRDD erred in so concluding.
[4] The CRDD's decision results from a detailed analysis of the documentary evidence that was before the panel, and is based on its interpretation of the provisions of the Guinean Civil Code pertaining to the acquisition and loss of nationality in that country.
[5] Essentially, the CRDD found that the applicant was Guinean because at the time of his birth, in 1970, his mother was Guinean. The CRDD determined that he had not lost this nationality simply because his mother had obtained Congolese nationality by marrying the applicant's father in 1980, ten years after the applicant's birth. The CRDD also found that the applicant had not voluntarily acquired another nationality (Congolese) from the fact that he was born in the Congo to a Congolese father and that he had therefore not lost his Guinean nationality under article 95 of the Guinean Civil Code.
[6] The applicant alleges that the CRDD erred because under the laws of the DRC and Guinea, it is not possible for a national of Congo or a national of Guinea to have dual nationality. Consequently, he claims to have automatically lost his Guinean nationality at the time of his birth.
[7] I agree with the respondent that the applicant cannot have lost the Guinean nationality that was transmitted to him at birth under the Guinean Civil Code, through his mother, solely because he was born in Congo and not in Guinea or because his mother had obtained Congolese citizenship after his birth. I wish to add that if such were the case, article 32 of the Guinean Civil Code would be unnecessary.
[8] In view of the evidence in the record, and in particular the statutory provisions concerning nationality in the two countries in question, I am unable to say that the analysis and conclusion of the CRDD are erroneous. Furthermore, the CRDD's assessment of the facts in this case is not patently erroneous either since it is based on the applicant's testimony, his Personal Information Form ("PIF") and the correspondence that the applicant had with his mother living in Guinea. I am of the opinion that the conclusions drawn from the evidence are completely reasonable.
[9] Concerning his second submission, that the CRDD did not stop interrupting him during his testimony and thereby breached a principle of natural justice, the applicant alleges that the CRDD prevented him from providing explanations and adequately presenting his evidence. He submits that the CRDD was in breach of its obligation to act fairly under the Key Point Guide to Refugee Law for CRDD Members, Legal Services of the Immigration and Refugee Board, November 2000.
[10] The cases are clear that the Board members may intervene during the hearing and put questions to the applicant, even energetically, in order to verify the claimants' allegations. (See Mahendran v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 14 Imm. L.R. (2d) 30 at paragraph 5 and Ithibu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 499 at paragraphs 52, 53 and 54.) I have considered the transcript of the hearing including the specific extract cited by the respondent, and although there are some interruptions I do not think they were intimidating or would have prevented the applicant from presenting his evidence. In fact, one of the extracts from the examination shows that the Board members confronted the applicant with an obvious contradiction in his evidence concerning the alleged lack of warmth in his relations with his mother and the applicant had an opportunity to explain himself on this question.
[11] For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the applicant's submissions do not justify the Court's intervention in any way, because the CRDD committed no error in fact or in law.
[12] Counsel have not proposed any question to certify.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
This appeal is dismissed and no question is to be certified.
"Simon Noël"
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20030403
Docket: IMM-5510-01
Between:
BRUNO BADY-BADILA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5510-01
STYLE: BRUNO BADY-BADILA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 3, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIMON NOËL
DATED: April 3, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Stéphanie Valois FOR THE APPLICANT
Steve Bell FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Stéphanie Valois FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content