Date: 20100825
Docket: IMM-6349-09
Citation: 2010 FC 840
Toronto, Ontario, August 25,
2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
PAUL
AGGE ELIMBY NGALLE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Paul
Agge Elimby Ngalle is a citizen of Cameroon whose claim for refugee protection was refused
by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Mr.
Elimby Ngalle alleges that the Board erred by basing its negative credibility
findings on matters that were not material to the central issues in the claim,
and by ignoring documentary evidence which supported his claim.
[2]
For
the reasons that follow, I am not persuaded that the Board erred as alleged.
Consequently, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
Did the Board
Base its Credibility Finding on Irrelevant Considerations?
[3]
The
Board made negative credibility findings based upon inconsistencies in Mr. Elimby
Ngalle’s evidence relating to his educational history and his marital status.
Mr. Elimby Ngalle says that this was unreasonable, as both of these matters
were completely irrelevant to the question of whether he faced a well-founded
fear of persecution in Cameroon because of his
membership in the South Cameroon National Congress (SCNC).
[4]
The
Board provided detailed reasons for disbelieving Mr. Elimby Ngalle’s story. Its
negative credibility findings were based upon numerous inconsistencies and
discrepancies in his testimony. Some of these findings, such as the finding
relating to Mr. Elimby Ngalle’s inability to recall the full name of the SCNC
and his description of the organization as a social group rather than a
secessionist political movement, went to the very heart of his claim.
[5]
While
the findings relating to Mr. Elimby Ngalle’s educational history and marital
status were less central to his claim, they were by no means irrelevant to it.
Mr. Elimby Ngalle claimed to have become involved in the SCNC in 1994, while he
was attending university. The Board was thus understandably troubled by the
inconsistencies and gaps in Mr. Elimby Ngalle’s evidence as to when he finished
high school, when he commenced university, and whether or not he worked for a
period of time before commencing his university studies.
[6]
The
inconsistencies in Mr. Elimby Ngalle’s evidence regarding his marital situation
were relevant to his status in South Africa during the years that he says he spent there
after leaving Cameroon. Although he claimed
to have been involved in a common law relationship, it turns out that he was
able to obtain permanent residency in South Africa (which he later lost) as a result of his
formal marriage to a South African woman.
[7]
Mr.
Elimby Ngalle has also not been able to explain away the serious
inconsistencies in the evidence as to his physical location at various times.
For example, he claims to have been in South Africa in 2003, but could not
explain how he was able to renew his Cameroonian driver’s license in person
in 2003 if he never once returned to Cameroon during that year.
[8]
Similarly,
Mr. Elimby Ngalle was unable to explain how he was able to provide his original
passport to the Canadian Embassy in South Africa in the summer of 2004 in support of an
application for an employment visa, at a time that he says that he was using it
to travel to Cameroon. This is a
particularly troubling discrepancy, given his claim that he was imprisoned and
tortured during this visit to Cameroon because of his SCNC activities.
[9]
Consequently,
Mr. Elimby Ngalle has not persuaded me that the Board erred by making negative
credibility findings based upon irrelevancies.
Did the Board
Err by Ignoring Documentary Evidence?
[10]
Mr.
Elimby Ngalle says that the Board also erred by ignoring documentary evidence
that supported his claim, namely a copy of what he says was his SCNC membership
card and a letter purporting to be from the SCNC, attesting to his involvement
with the organization.
[11]
It
is true that the Board did not refer to these documents by name. However, it
is clear from a fair reading of the discussion of the “conflicting documentary
evidence” at paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Board’s decision that the Board did
not believe that the documents in issue were genuine. As a result, I am not
persuaded that the documents were ignored by the Board.
Conclusion
[12]
For
these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[13]
Neither
party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This
application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No
serious question of general importance is certified.
“Anne
Mactavish”
Email this Content