Docket: IMM-6862-11
Citation:
2012 FC 906
Ottawa, Ontario,
July 20, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
AND BETWEEN:
|
|
QURESH OSMAN
ALL SAINTS CHURCH WINNIPEG
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
In
1991, Ms Quresh Osman fled the fighting in Somalia after the death of her
husband, his other wife, and the other wife’s children. She travelled with her
step-son, Abdulkadir, her son, Ahmed, and her daughter, Naima. Along the way,
Abdulkadir and Ahmed were captured by the militia and forced to work in a camp.
After they escaped, the family made its way to a refugee camp in Ethiopia,
where they lived for thirteen years. The family then travelled to Uganda in
2005, and the following year applied for permanent residence in Canada as
members of the Convention refugee abroad class or the country of asylum class.
The family is sponsored by All Saints Church in Winnipeg.
[2]
In
2011, a visa officer in Kampala, Uganda interviewed Ms Osman and the other
family members. The officer denied their applications for a lack of credible
evidence. All four applicants have sought judicial review. I have dealt with
their applications separately (see IMM-6857-11 (Abdulkadir Ali),
IMM-6858-11 (Ahmed Ali) and IMM-6861-11 (Naima Ali). This
decision relates solely to Ms Quresh Osman.
[3]
Ms
Osman submits that the officer treated her unfairly by relying on extrinsic
evidence, and by failing to give her a chance to address the officer’s concerns
about her credibility. She also contends that the officer rendered an
unreasonable decision because her reasons do not identify the basis for her
doubts about Ms Osman’s credibility. Further, her concerns related merely to
peripheral aspects of Ms Osman’s evidence, not the core issues. She asks me to
quash the officer’s decision and order another officer to reconsider her
application.
[4]
I
can find no basis for overturning the officer’s decision. Ms Osman was given an
adequate opportunity to submit supporting evidence and to address the officer’s
credibility concerns. Further, the officer’s findings were not unreasonable;
they arose from the evidence before her and Ms Osman’s inability to explain
discrepancies in it. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial
review.
[5]
The
issues are:
1. Did
the officer treat Ms Osman unfairly?
2. Was
the officer’s decision unreasonable?
II. The Officer’s
Decision
[6]
The
officer was concerned about the lack of documentary evidence supporting Ms
Osman’s application. Ms Osman produced a photocopy of an expired transportation
document from the refugee camp, nothing more.
[7]
The
officer also harbored concerns about Ms Osman’s credibility based on
contradictions between her application and her evidence at the interview. The
officer also noted discrepancies between Ms Osman’s evidence and that of other
family members. She also drew an adverse inference from Ms Osman’s statement
that the family had traveled to Uganda not as refugees, but to be sponsored.
[8]
In
her application, Ms Osman stated that Abdulkadir and Ahmed had been detained by
the militia for two months. In the interview, she said it was almost a month.
[9]
At
the interview, Ms Osman was asked about the identity of a person named Idil
Omar Ali. Ms Osman’s daughter Naima had told the officer that Idil Omar was
Ahmed’s former wife. Ms Osman said she did not know who Idil Omar was but,
without prompting, she offered the name of Ahmed’s current wife. Asked about
where the family had lived in the refugee camp, Ms Osman said they lived on the
Kamamhara block. Her daughter gave a different name. Ms Osman also gave a
different version from Naima and Ahmed about how rations were distributed in
the camp.
[10]
The
officer found that Ms Osman had failed to supply adequate documentary evidence
to support her application, and that her evidence contained a number of
inconsistencies. She concluded that Ms Osman had failed to establish that she
met the requirements for permanent residence in Canada as a member of the
Convention refugee abroad class or the country of asylum class.
III.
Issue
One – Did the officer treat Ms Osman unfairly?
[11]
Ms
Osman argues that the officer should have given her a chance to obtain further
documentary evidence in support of her application. Ms Osman also suggests
that the officer should have recognized that she was a refugee since her
step-son, Abdulkadir, had produced proof of his status. In addition, she
maintains that the officer relied on evidence of which she was unaware, namely,
the evidence provided by other family members in their interviews. The officer
did not explain what the others had said and, accordingly, gave her no
meaningful opportunity to address the officer’s concerns.
[12]
In
my view, the officer did not treat Ms Osman unfairly.
[13]
In
2007, and again in 2011, Citizenship and Immigration Canada [CIC] provided Ms
Osman with a list of documents needed to support her application –
identification documents, birth certificate, UNHCR documents, etc. Ms Osman did
not respond to those letters and only brought a single, outdated, largely
irrelevant document to the interview.
[14]
In
my view, the officer reasonably expected that Ms Osman should have been able to
produce better evidence of her identity. She had been given notice and an adequate
opportunity to submit the required documents. Rather than pointing out a flaw
in the officer’s treatment of her, her reference to Abdulkadir’s evidence of
his refugee status simply underscores the fact that she could equally have
produced satisfactory documentation.
[15]
The
officer noted discrepancies between Ms Osman’s application and her evidence at
the interview. For example, Ms Osman had given different answers when asked
about the duration of Abdulkadir’s and Ahmed’s detention. The officer also put
to Ms Osman questions arising from the evidence of other family members. In at
least three areas, the evidence differed significantly. While Ms Osman argues
that the officer should not have doubted her credibility simply because others
had given different answers, in my view, the officer gave her a fair chance to
present her version of events.
[16]
Ms
Osman had ample opportunity to present documentary evidence supporting her
claim, and was given a fair chance to respond to the officer’s concerns about
her evidence. The officer did not treat her unfairly.
IV. Issue Two – Was the
officer’s decision unreasonable?
[17]
Ms
Osman argues that the officer unreasonably concluded that she had been unable
to produce documents confirming that she had lived in Uganda. Further, she
maintains that the officer unreasonably concluded that her evidence about the
composition of the family, her time in Ethiopia, and the reason the family
travelled to Uganda cast doubt on the core of her claim about the risk she
faces in Somalia.
[18]
In
my view,
the officer’s conclusions were supported by the evidence and, therefore, were
reasonable.
[19]
The
officer’s notes stated that Ms Osman was “not able to produce documents despite
being in Uganda for stated 6 years.” This was not strictly correct as Ms Osman
had produced one expired document. In the circumstances, however, I take it
that the officer meant that Ms Osman had not produced sufficient documentation,
not that she had provided none. As a resident of Uganda for six years, Ms Osman
had an opportunity to obtain better documentary evidence.
[20]
Ms
Osman clearly provided inconsistent evidence about the detention of Abdulkadir
and Ahmed, as well as the identity of Idil Omar, and her time in an Ethiopian
refugee camp. While this evidence did not go to the core basis of her
application – risk of mistreatment in Somalia – it did affect her overall
credibility, particularly given the absence of supporting documentation. In
addition, the question of Idil Omar’s connection to the family was relevant to
the question whether the applicants might have status in Ethiopia, or
elsewhere.
[21]
Finally,
Ms Osman’s statement that the family travelled to Uganda for purposes of
sponsorship did not figure prominently in the officer’s reasons. The officer
decided Ms Osman’s application mainly on grounds of credibility and a lack of
documentary evidence. Had Ms Osman’s statement been a more significant factor,
the officer’s reliance on it would have been more troubling. There is certainly
nothing inherently wrong with the family making itself available for
sponsorship by travelling to Uganda.
[22]
In
my view, in the circumstances, the officer’s conclusion that Ms Osman had
failed to discharge the burden of proving that she was a member of the
Convention refugee abroad class or the country of asylum class was not
unreasonable on the evidence before her.
V. Conclusion and Disposition
[23]
The
officer did not treat Ms Osman unfairly. She was given notice and an adequate
opportunity to present documentation to support her claim. The officer also
gave Ms Osman a chance to respond to her concerns. Further, the officer’s
conclusion that Ms Osman had failed to produce sufficient, credible evidence to
support her application was not unreasonable, given the absence of documentary
support for it, and the contradictions in her evidence. I must, therefore,
dismiss this application for judicial review.
[24]
Counsel
for Mr Osman proposed the following questions for certification:
1.
In
an application for permanent residence at a Canadian visa office abroad, does
the visa office breach the duty of fairness owed the applicant by basing the
decision in part on interviews with other, related applicants, but not
disclosing the entirety of those other interviews to the applicant with an
opportunity for comment?
2.
Is
there a breach in the duty of fairness owed an application for immigration at a
visa post abroad where
(a) the
visa office interviews a number of related applicants separately,
(b) refuses the
application of the applicant based on inconsistencies with the interviews of
the other related applicants, and
(c) the
visa office does not disclose to the applicant the inconsistencies with an
opportunity to respond?
[25]
Neither
question should be stated. Question 1 is based on the proposition that fairness
requires disclosure of the entirely of other interviews, rather than the parts
that contradict a particular applicant’s evidence. There is no foundation for
that proposition. Further, the officer’s main concerns in this case arose from
the lack of documentation and inconsistencies in Ms Osman’s own evidence.
Question 2 does not arise because the officer did disclose the inconsistencies
and gave Ms Osman an opportunity to respond.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
No
serious question of general importance will be stated.
“James W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content