Docket: IMM-6858-11
Citation:
2012 FC 908
Ottawa, Ontario,
July 20, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
AHMED ALI
ALL SAINTS CHURCH WINNIPEG
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
In
1991, Mr Ahmed Ali fled the fighting in Somalia with other family members. He
and his half-brother Abdulkadir were captured by the militia and forced to work
in a camp. After he escaped, the family made its way to a refugee camp in Ethiopia, where they lived for thirteen years. The family 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 Mr Ali, as well as his
mother, half-brother and sister. 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-6862-11 (Quresh Osman),
IMM-6857-11 (Abdulkadir Ali) and IMM-6861-11 (Naima Ali)). This
decision relates solely Mr Ahmed Ali.
[3]
Mr
Ali submits that the officer treated him unfairly by not giving him a chance to
address her concerns about his evidence. He also contends that the officer
rendered an unreasonable decision because her reasons do not identify the
inconsistencies that caused her to doubt Mr Ali’s credibility. Further, her
concerns related to peripheral aspects of Mr Ali’s evidence, not the core
issues. He asks me to quash the officer’s decision and order another officer to
reconsider his application.
[4]
I
can find no basis for overturning the officer’s decision. Mr Ali 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 Mr Ali’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 Mr Ali unfairly?
2. Was
the officer’s decision unreasonable?
II. The Officer’s
Decision
[6]
The
officer had concerns about Mr Ali’s identity, the composition of his family,
and the credibility of his account of events. Those concerns arose from the
following evidence:
• Mr
Ali could not produce identification documents at the interview. He claimed
that his documents had been stolen two days earlier. He reported the theft to
police, but he did not have a police report or a file number.
• Mr
Ali explained that the mother of his son, his ex-wife, was named Faduma Abdi
Salam Hersi. She lived in Somalia and could not care for their child. However,
his UNHCR registration identified another woman, Idil Omar Ali, as his wife. Mr
Ali claimed this was the result of an error of translation. He did not know who
Idil Omar Ali was. However, when the officer mentioned her concerns about the
composition of the family, Mr Ali explained that Idil Omar Ali was a woman he
used to date and planned to marry. She now lived in Kenya. The officer pointed
out that Mr Ali’s sister had told her that Idil Omar Ali was Mr Ali’s wife and
the mother of his son, and lived in Kampala.
• Mr
Ali gave inconsistent versions of his experiences of capture, escape, and
crossing the border to Ethiopia.
[7]
Based
on these concerns, the officer had doubts about Mr Ali’s identity, the
composition of his family, and his account of events. She was not satisfied
that he met the requirements for permanent residence and dismissed his
application.
III. Issue One – Did the
officer treat Mr Ali unfairly?
[8]
Mr
Ali submits that the officer did not give him a fair opportunity to respond to
her concerns. She did not give him a chance to replace his stolen identity
documents, and she has not given any explanation for failing to do so. Nor did
she identify the contradictions in his evidence that caused her to doubt his credibility.
[9]
In
my view, Mr. Ali had ample opportunity to provide supporting documents. Citizenship
and Immigration Canada [CIC] twice informed Mr Ali that he needed to provide
documentation supporting his application, once in 2007 and again in 2011. All that
he provided before the interview was a letter from the UNHCR. He did not bring
any additional documents to the interview.
[10]
In
a situation where an officer’s concerns arise at an interview, he or she must
generally give an applicant a reasonable opportunity to respond to them (Khwaja
v Canada (Minister of Citizenzhip and Immigration), 2006 FC 522, at para
17. Here, however, CIC gave Mr Ali plenty of notice. He could have supplied the
necessary documents well before the interview.
[11]
On
cross-examination, the officer explained that she did not give Mr Ali further
time to submit documents because he could not confirm the alleged theft by way
of a police report or file number. Further, Mr Ali had not brought any other
documentation with him to the interview.
[12]
With
respect to Mr Ali’s evidence about Idil Omar, the officer specifically asked Mr
Ali to respond to what his sister, Naima, had said about her. His answer
contradicted his own evidence, the information in his application, and Naima’s
version. In my view, the officer gave Mr Ali a fair chance to resolve the
contradictory information about Idil Omar’s identity.
[13]
The
officer also gave Mr Ali a chance to resolve inconsistencies in his evidence.
She noted discrepancies regarding his capture by the militia, his escape,
crossing the border to Ethiopia, and his experiences there. Mr Ali could not
explain those contradictions.
[14]
In
his application, Mr Ali stated that he and his brother were kidnapped by
militiamen and held captive for a year. They escaped across the border to Ethiopia and rejoined their family with the help of a sympathetic militiaman. At the
interview, Mr Ali explained that the family was arrested by militiamen and the
men were separated from the women. They were detained for almost a month. His mother
rescued them.
[15]
In
my view, by alerting Mr Ali to the fact that his version of the events
surrounding his arrest, detention and release was inconsistent, the officer
gave him a fair chance to clarify his evidence. He was unable to do so.
[16]
In
my view, Mr Ali was given an adequate opportunity to supply supporting
documents and respond to the officer’s concerns about his account of events.
The officer treated him fairly in the circumstances.
IV. Issue Two – Was the
officer’s decision unreasonable?
[17]
Mr
Ali submits that the officer’s concerns did not relate to the main issue before
her – the risk to Mr Ali in Somalia. Her concerns about what happened on the
trip from Somalia to Ethiopia and about Idil Omar Ali were at the fringe of his
application.
[18]
In
my view, Mr Ali’s evidence created legitimate doubt about his overall
credibility and, therefore, went to the core of his application. When given a
chance, he simply could not resolve the contradictions in his own evidence.
Further, Mr Ali’s explanation of his relationship with Idil Omar Ali related to
his marital situation and, therefore, was relevant to the availability of safe
alternatives to permanent residence in Canada. Clearly, his evidence on that
subject was contradictory. The officer properly took it into account in
concluding that Mr Ali had not met the requirements for permanent residence.
[19]
The
officer’s concerns about Mr Ali’s credibility arose from the evidence before
her and, therefore, her decision was not unreasonable.
V. Conclusion and Disposition
[20]
The
officer’s reasons accorded with the evidence before her and her conclusion
represented a defensible outcome based on the facts and the law. Accordingly,
her decision was not unreasonable and I must, therefore, dismiss this
application for judicial review.
[21]
Counsel
for Mr Ali 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?
[22]
No
questions need to be stated. Question 1 does not arise on the facts of this
case. The officer did not base her decision on what other family members had
said. Rather, she presented Naima’s evidence about Idil Omar to Mr Ali to
explain and, in doing so, gave Mr Ali a fair opportunity to clarify the
contradictions in his own evidence. Similarly, Question 2 does not arise
because the officer did give Mr Ali a fair 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