Conte v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 963

Email this Content

Citations
2005 FC 963

Case tabs

Text of decision

Date: 20050714

Docket: IMM-10566-04

Citation: 2005 FC 963

BETWEEN:

FATOUMATA CONTE

Applicant

-and-

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

PINARD J.

[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB) dated December 2, 2004, that the applicant, a citizen of Guinea, is not a AConvention refugee@ or a Aperson on need of protection@ as defined in sections 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

[2] The applicant alleged that she has been alienated by her community since 1987. The incident of December 2003 B when rocks were thrown against the walls of her apartment and she was accused of being an unfit mother B were the events that prompted her to flee Guinea. However, as the IRB points out in its decision, the applicant had already begun to take steps to leave Guinea in August, as she had written to her niece. The evidence also shows that the applicant planned to leave in 2004, that she had in her possession a Guinean passport issued on September 10, 2003, an American visa issued on January 21, 2004, and money from her niece that she had had since February 2004. Despite that, the applicant waited until March 21, 2004, to leave her country. In my opinion, the IRB could reasonably determine that this conduct is inconsistent with any fear and that it tainted the applicant=s credibility.

[3] Further, the applicant travelled through France and stayed in the United States with

her niece for three weeks without making a refugee claim. In my opinion, it was not

patently unreasonable for the IRB to criticize her for that omission, as the United States

is a signatory country of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (see Pan v.

Canada (M.E.I.), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1116 (F.C.A.) (QL) and Assadi v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1997] F.C.J. No. 331 (QL)).

[4] Therefore, all of the applicant=s actions or inactions indicate that she had intended to leave the country before the alleged acts which brought about her fear and that she did not have a genuine subjective fear. Under the circumstances, the absence of a subjective fear is enough to bring about the dismissal of the application for judicial review (see, inter alia, the decisions of the Federal Court in Taj v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2004] F.C.J. No. 880 (QL), Iracanye v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 739 (QL), Monteiro v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1720 (QL), Anandasivam v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1519 (QL), Gamassi v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1841 (QL), Kamana v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1695 (QL), Tabet-Zatla v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1778 (QL) and Ilie v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1758 (QL)).

[5] For all of these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

AYvon Pinard@

JUDGE

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

July 14, 2005

Certified true translation

Kelley Harvey, BCL, LLB

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: IMM-10566-04

STYLE OF CAUSE: FATOUMATA CONTE v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING: June 22, 2005

REASONS FOR ORDER: Pinard J.

DATE OF REASONS: July 14, 2005

APPEARANCES:

Annick Legault FOR THE APPLICANT

Marie-Claude Paquette FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Annick Legault FOR THE APPLICANT

Montréal, Quebec

John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada