Date: 20100825
Docket: IMM-6305-09
Citation: 2010 FC 843
Toronto, Ontario, August 25,
2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
GABRIEL
ALONGE OKITO
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Gabriel
Alonge Okito is a Congolese citizen whose claim for refugee protection was
refused by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board. Mr. Okito alleges that the Board erred by failing to carry out a proper
section 97 analysis. In addition, he says that the Board also erred by
ignoring evidence that supported his claim, and in basing negative credibility
and plausibility findings on a lack of corroborating documentation, without
regard to cultural norms.
[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.
The Section
97 Issue
[3]
Mr.
Okito argues firstly that the Board erred by failing to carry out a proper
section 97 analysis, and submits that such an analysis was required even though
it had found his story of persecution at the hands of the government of the
Democratic Republic of Congo not to be credible. Mr. Okito says that he was
targeted for persecution because he had signed a press communiqué denouncing
the government, which had subsequently been published in a newspaper.
[4]
Mr.
Okito relies on the decision of this Court in Kilic v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 84, [2004] F.C.J. No. 84, in support of his
contention that a full section 97 analysis was required in this case. It is
clear, however, that Mr. Okito’s situation is readily distinguishable from the
circumstances confronting the Court in Kilic.
[5]
Kilic involved an individual
who claimed refugee protection based on his ethnicity, his religion, and his
political opinion. He also relied upon his status as an evader of conscription
in the Turkish military, for which he faced imprisonment.
[6]
In
that case, the Board found many of the applicant’s claims lacked credibility.
It was not, however, disputed that the applicant faced imprisonment in Turkey for having evaded his
military obligations. In light of the significant evidence in the record documenting
the deplorable prison conditions in Turkey, the Court held that “some sort of
analysis by the Board setting out why the applicant was not a person in need of
protection was required”: at para. 23.
[7]
In
this case, once the Board rejected Mr. Okito’s claim to have been a human
rights activist in the DRC, his profile did not distinguish him from any other 40-year-old
male Congolese citizen. Mr. Okito has not identified any evidence in the record
that would suggest that the country conditions within the DRC are such that 40-year-old
male citizens of the DRC are at any particular risk in that country. In the
absence of such evidence the Board was not required to carry out a full section
97 analysis: see Bouaouni v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1211, [2003]
F.C.J. No. 1540 at paras. 41-2, and Sellan v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FCA 381, [2008] F.C.J. No. 1685.
The Board’s
Consideration of Mr. Okito’s Evidence
[8]
Mr.
Okito submits that the Board erred by ignoring documentary evidence attesting
to the expulsion of a French journalist from the DRC, which was the subject of
the press release allegedly signed by Mr. Okito. He says that the Board also
ignored documentary evidence regarding the arrest and detention of other
journalists, and a “Reverend Kutino”, with whom Mr. Okito allegedly worked.
[9]
The
difficulty with these submissions is that there is no link in any of this
documentation between the individuals identified therein and Mr. Okito. The
fact that other individuals may have been targeted by the Congolese government
does not establish that Mr. Okito himself was at risk.
[10]
There
were serious problems with Mr. Okito’s testimony regarding his activities in the
DRC. Not the least of these was his inability to name a single individual,
apart from Reverend Kutino, who he visited in prison. This clearly cast
serious doubt upon his claim to have been a human rights activist who spent
years visiting detainees in prison and preparing reports on their behalf.
[11]
Moreover,
Mr. Okito acknowledged having been invited to participate in an agricultural
conference in the United
States
dealing with the use of a particular plant in the treatment of malaria. The
fact that Mr. Okito would be invited to participate in such a conference
certainly cast further doubt on his claim to have been a legally-trained human
rights activist.
[12]
The
Board was also understandably troubled by Mr. Okito’s failure to produce
relevant documentary evidence to support his claim. For example, he made no
efforts to obtain a copy of the press release that he says is at the heart of
his claim, even though the document was allegedly published in a newspaper and
could thus potentially have been available.
[13]
While
the sworn evidence of a refugee claimant is presumed to be true, this
presumption is rebutted if there is reason to doubt the truthfulness of an
applicant’s evidence: Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment
& Immigration),
[1979] F.C.J. No. 248 at para. 5. In such cases, it is not unreasonable for the
Board to require supporting documentation to confirm the applicant’s testimony:
see, for example, Ortiz Juarez v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 288, 2005] F.C.J. No. 365 at para. 7
and Zhang v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 787, [2009] F.C.J. No. 911 at para. 6.
[14]
Mr.
Okito claimed he was able to escape from custody with the assistance of a
school friend who worked in Presidential security. I am not persuaded that the
Board erred in finding it implausible that someone that he had not seen in over
20 years would put his own safety on the line to help Mr. Okito escape from
government forces. While Mr. Okito says that this finding was made “without
regard to cultural norms”, he acknowledges that there is no evidence in the
record as to any specific cultural norm that would detract from the Board’s
finding in this regard.
Conclusion
[15]
For
these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[16]
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