Date: 20010124
Docket: IMM-2499-00
BETWEEN:
PATRICK MASAMBOMBO NGANDU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
GIBSON, J.
[1] These reasons arise out of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "CRDD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board wherein the CRDD determined the applicant not to be a Convention refugee within the meaning ascribed to that phrase in subsection. 2 (1) of the Immigration Act1. The decision of the CRDD is dated the 1st of March, 2000.
[2] The applicant claims to be a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, born in Kinshasa on the third of January, 1979. He bases his claim to Convention refugee status on the ethnicity of his partner, the mother of his child, his membership in a particular social group, his family, and his perceived political opinion based on the political profile of his family members and his own political profile.
[3] In its reasons for decision, delivered orally at the close of the applicant's hearing before it, the CRDD identified essentially three reasons for rejecting the applicant's application. First, the CRDD found the applicant's story to be not credible. It wrote:
| Monsieur Patrick Massambombo-Ngandu, le tribunal après avoir étudié votre témoignage, ne vous reconnâit pas comme réfugié au Canada. Nous ne vous reconnaissons pas comme réfugié pour cause de non crédibilité. Votre histoire est non crédible, non plausible et c'est pourquoi nous ne vous reconnaissons pas comme réfugié au Canada et nous ajoutons qu'il n'y a même pas de minimum de fondement dans votre revendication. |
In support if its want of credibility finding, the CRDD referred to one discrepancy in the evidence before it. It wrote:
| Vous dites que vous faites partie de la jeunesse de l'UDPS à 17 ans, alors que le Secrétaire Général de l'UDPS dit que ça commence à 18 ans le membership de l'UDPS. C'est d'ailleurs ce qui est écrit dans le premier document de l'exhibit A-12. |
The discrepancy was, I conclude, not a significant one. The testimony of the applicant indicates that, at the time he became active in the UDPS, he had turned 18 only some six months earlier.
[4] Secondly, the CRDD was concerned that the applicant's identity was unsubstantiated. It wrote:
| Deuxièmement, vous n'avez aucune preuve d'identité. Nous ne savons pas qui est devant nous. Nous ne pouvons pas accorder une demande lorsque nous ignorons tout du demandeur. Vous n'avez pas votre carte verte, aucun document des écoles que vous auriez fréquentées, pas de cartes de l'UDPS. |
| Vous nous donnez un acte de naissance, c'est le seul papier que vous nous donnez, mais malheureusement, l'acte de naissance que vous nous donnez est tout-à-fait falsifié. Nous n'avons pas l'expertise pour juger qu'un document est faux ou pas faux, mais nous avons des connaissances suffisantes pour voir que dans ces documents comme votre acte de naissance, beaucoup de choses ont été effacées, des noms ont été effacés et remplacés par d'autres noms dont le vôtre puis celui de vos parents. |
| Si vous nous donnez un tel document, c'est que vous voulez tromper le tribunal et nous ne sommes pas du tout heureux d'avoir à lire un document qui à sa face même a été falsifié de cette façon. La seule explication que vous nous donnez, c'est que la preimière fois que ce papier a été dactylographié les lettres « étaient penchées » et qui ont été effacées et qui ont été reprises. Nous avons l'impression qu'à ce moment là vous corrigez une menterie par une autre menterie. Ce que nous ne tolérons pas. |
[5] In this finding, the CRDD appears to ignore completely the fact that the applicant's sister, herself determined to be a Convention refugee in Canada, appeared at the applicant's hearing and testified at some length. In her testimony, she identified her brother. In response, her brother identified his sister. The sister's story of the political involvement of her family, including political discussions involving the younger brother who is here the applicant, of the police raid on the family home, of her rape and of the applicant's humiliation in being required to observe her rape and to subsequently further participate in his sister's and his own humiliation, was entirely consistent with the applicant's own narrative to his Personal Information Form and his testimony.
[6] Finally, the CRDD concluded it could find no nexus between the applicant's fear of return to the Democratic Republic of Congo and the definition "Convention refugee". It wrote:
| Votre lien avec la notion de réfugié, nous ne le trouvons pas. Pour être réfugié il faut être persécuté pour raison de race, de nationalité, de religion, pour des opinions politiques ou appartenance à un groupe social particulier. Ce qui n'est pas votre cas. |
| Votre demande n'a aucun lien avec l'un des cinq motifs de la Convention. Peut-être que vous avez un trouble avec un Monsieur Kalembo. C'est un trouble personnel qui ne donne pas lien à la Convention. |
| Nous ne trouvons pas d'agent persécuteur également dans votre histoire, sauf que vous nous dites que si vous retournez que vous avez peur du monde, de tout le monde, et que quand on vous demande de préciser, vous dites que vous avez peur du gouvernement. Il n'y a là aucune réponse pour nous faire changer notre décision. C'est pourquoi aussi croyons-nous que votre réponse de la question 20, êtes-vous rechereché, vous répondez non. [citation omitted] |
[7] I have earlier referred to the police raid on the applicant's family's home, by reason of suspected political activity on the part of family members, to the rape of the applicant's sister in the course of that raid and to the humiliation, not simply of the sister but of the applicant in the course of the raid. The applicant's testimony was entirely consistent regarding the political involvement of the applicant's family. His testimony as to his own political activity, apart from his age at the time he commenced that activity, was not questioned by the CRDD. While the applicant may have been arrested at the instance of an individual who had a vendetta against him, the applicant's treatment by government officials while he was in prison was simply nor mentioned by the CRDD. His testimony as to the facts that he was starved and beaten and otherwise tortured and that he fled imprisonment and came directly to Canada would appear to have been simply ignored. The fact that his Personal Information Form was, in many respects, entirely consistent with those of his sister and brother that were before the CRDD, both of whom had been found in Canada to be Convention refugees, would also appear to have been ignored. Finally, the applicant's testimony that he was the father of a child whose mother was a Tutsi would also appear to have been ignored.
[8] I conclude that this decision of the CRDD is fraught with instances of ignored evidence with the result that conclusions of the CRDD are simply perverse or capricious when viewed in light of the totality of the evidence. That is not to say that the decision reached by the CRDD was not reasonably open to it. It is simply to say that the analysis of the CRDD in respect of this applicant's claim simply fundamentally fails to support its decision.
[9] For all of the foregoing reasons, this application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the CRDD that is under review will be set aside and the applicant's application for Convention refugee status will be referred back to the Immigration and Refugee Board for rehearing and redetermination.
[10] At the close of the hearing, I indicated to counsel what the result of the hearing before me would be. Neither counsel recommended certification of a question. No question will be certified.
"Frederick E. Gibson"
JUDGE
Calgary, Alberta,
Wednesday the 24th of January, 2001.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20010124
Docket: IMM-2499-00
BETWEEN:
PATRICK MASAMBOMBO NGANDU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2499-00
| STYLE OF CAUSE: PATRICK MASAMBOMBO-NGANDU v. MCI |
PLACE OF HEARING: CALGARY, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: January 22, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF GIBSON, J.
DATED: January 24, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Charles Darwent FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Tracy King FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Charles Darwent
CALGARY, Alberta FOR APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
OTTAWA, Ontario FOR RESPONDENT
__________________
1 R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2
Email this Content