Date: 20110420
Docket: IMM-4712-10
Citation: 2011 FC 474
Ottawa, Ontario, April 20,
2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie
BETWEEN:
|
|
GODDY HODANU
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
The
is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 72 of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA) of a decision
rendered August 25, 2010 by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada (the Board), whereby the applicant’s application
for refugee protection was refused. The determinative issue in the decision
was the applicant’s identity and his credibility as a witness.
Facts
[2]
The
applicant testified that in January 1992, while he was a student at the University of Yaounde,
in the Francophone area of Cameroon, he joined the Social Democratic Front
(SDF), an organization whose objective was to raise awareness concerning the
marginalization of anglophone Cameroonians. He remained active in that
organization until 1995. A month after joining the SDF, the applicant joined
the Southern Cameroon National Council (SCNC) and remained a member until his
departure from Cameroon in September 2008. The
applicant became a Lutheran pastor in 1999.
[3]
He
was arrested three times in Cameroon for his political activities: on May 26, 1993, June 22,
2003, and February 10, 2005. Each of these arrests were as a result of his
participation in political rallies. On May 10, 2008, the applicant invited a
constitutional lawyer to come speak to his congregation about the recent
changes to the constitution made by the President of Cameroon in order to make himself
a “life president”. After this talk, the security forces came to his house and
arrested him.
[4]
Two
weeks after his release, the applicant was warned by friends that a warrant had
been issued against him. At that point, the applicant went into hiding until
he procured travel documents so that he could come to Canada.
[5]
The
applicant arrived in Canada on September 13, 2008 and made a claim for
refugee protection on September 15, 2008.
Decision Under Review
Identity
[6]
The Board accepted the fact
that the applicant had lived in Cameroon, however, it found that the applicant had
failed to establish his personal or national identity. The applicant provided
two identity documents to the Board; his birth certificate and his driver’s
license.
[7]
The Board
found that the driver’s license was endorsed for a larger vehicle. However, in
his testimony, the applicant stated that he was not qualified to drive anything
except for vehicles with less than nine passengers. As the documentary
evidence showed that forged driver’s licenses were common in Cameroon, the Board gave this
document little weight.
[8]
The second identity
document was a birth certificate issued in 1990. The Board was troubled by the
fact that the document did not reflect a registry entry, even thought the
applicant said that he had a birth certificate before 1990. As such, the Board
gave little weight to this document.
[9]
The Board
also took issue with the applicant’s assertion that he was a pastor at a Church
in Kumba from 1999 to 2008, but did not provide a letter from the congregation
attesting to his employment. The Board found that this undermined the
applicant’s identity.
Credibility
[10]
Under
section 106 of the IRPA, the Board must assess the applicant’s
credibility in cases where the applicant has failed to provide the Board with
adequate identity documents. The Board negatively assessed the applicant’s
credibility as a witness.
[11]
This
assessment was based on the documents provided by the applicant, his testimony,
inconsistencies in details about his arrests, and his failure to provided
evidence of his work as a pastor in Cameroon.
[12]
More
specifically, to demonstrate his political involvement, the applicant provided
a letter attesting to his support of the SCNC. The Board had several issues
with this letter. The letterhead included only half of the SCNC’s motto and
stated that the applicant had been a member since 1992, even though documentary
evidence, including the World Book Index and a Response to Information Request
(RIR) states that the SCNC was founded in 1995. As a result, the Board did not
give any weight to this letter.
[13]
The
applicant also provided his membership card to the SCNC. The Board found that
the document did not appear to have “spent 18 years in a humid African
climate”, and there was no wet seal impression over the photograph. The card
also stated that the applicant was a member since 1992, again, ante-dating the
existence of the very organization. The documentary evidence also suggests
that there were fraudulent SCNC cards in circulation. As a result, the Board
did not give any weight to the card.
[14]
The Board
found, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant was never a member
of the SCNC and that claim of membership was intended to enhance his claim.
[15]
The Board
was also concerned by the inconsistencies between the applicant’s Personal
Information Form (PIF) and a letter of support from a lawyer in Cameroon that his last arrest
took place in mid-May 2008, whereas the applicant testified that it took place
in July 2008. The Board stated that the applicant only explained the
contradiction when confronted with it and that his explanation was not
reasonable.
[16]
When
considered with the whole of the applicant’s testimony the Board found that the
applicant was not credible and trustworthy. Moreover, because the applicant
was not a credible witness, there was no evidence to demonstrate a personalized
risk. As a result, there was no credible evidence before the Board that the
applicant faced a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground,
and therefore, the Board found that the applicant was not a Convention refugee
under section 96 of the IRPA.
Analysis
[17]
The
onus is on the applicant, pursuant to section 106 of the IRPA, to
establish his or her identity by producing acceptable documentation. If he or
she cannot do so, the Board must consider whether the applicant has reasonably
explained the lack of documentation or taken reasonable steps to obtain
documentation: see Qiu v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2009 FC 259 at para 6; Zheng v Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration) 2008 FC 877 at para 14. Where identity is not
established it is unnecessary to further analyze the evidence and the claim: Qiu
at para 14; Zheng at para 15.
[18]
The
applicant submitted his driver’s license and his birth certificate as proof of
his identity. The Board gave little weight to these documents because of
inconsistencies between the documents and the applicant’s testimony and
concerns about the widespread availability of fraudulent documents in Cameroon.
[19]
When
the Board is concerned about the genuine nature of an identity document it is
essential for the Board to consider the totality of the applicant’s evidence,
including any explanations the applicant provides: see Jiang v Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), 2007 FC 1292 at para 7. This is because, as
Justice Von Finckelstein noted in Cheema v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 224, evidence of widespread
forgery is not, on its own, sufficient to reject a document as a forgery.
[20]
Therefore,
it would be improper for the Board to give little weight to identity documents
solely because there is general evidence that shows that these types of
documents are frequently forged. The Board must have something else to base
its conclusions on, which the Board in this case did: there were discrepancies
arising on the face of the identify documents and the inconsistencies in the
applicant’s evidence with respect to explanations offered in response to the inconsistencies.
[21]
When
examining the applicant’s identity, the Board must arrive at its conclusions
based on the totality of the evidence before it: Zheng at para 15; Jiang
at para 2. In the case before it, the Board reasonably considered as
inadequate the explanation about the applicant’s driver’s license and why he
was licensed to drive larger vehicles that could carry more than nine
passengers when he said he could only drive a small car. This, in combination
with evidence in the RIR that there is widespread forgery of driver’s licenses
in Cameroon, grounded
the Board’s finding and made the conclusion with respect to identy reasonable.
[22]
Section
106 of the IRPA requires that an applicant’s credibility be assessed in
light of his or her failure to provide adequate identity documents. In
assessing the applicant’s credibility the Board analyzed evidence pertaining to
his involvement with the SCNC, as established by his membership card, a letter
from the local branch of the SCNC and his arrest in 2008.
[23]
In
respect of each of these issues, the Board made findings of credibility. The Board
found that there was no credible evidence to support the applicant’s claims of
involvement with the SCNC or persecution because of that involvement and his
political beliefs more generally. As a result of these credibility findings,
the Board found that there was no serious possibility of persecution on a
Convention ground.
[24]
The Board
based its negative credibility finding regarding the SCNC letter and membership
card on concerns arising on the face of the documents themselves, such as the
fact that the letterhead only contained half the motto, and that there was no
wet seal impression on the photograph of the card, which led to concerns that
the documents were forgeries.
[25]
Moreover,
the applicant provided inconsistent evidence about the date or month in which
he was arrested in 2008. This was the precipitating event, and the discrepancy
of two months between the date of arrest as described in his narrative and his
testimony, when combined with problematic evidence of SCNC membership provided
an evidentiary foundation for the Board’s credibility finding.
[26]
The
applicant relies on a trilogy of cases Djama v Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration) [1992] FCJ No 531 (FCA), Xu v Canada (Minister
of Employment and Immigration) [1992] FCJ No 810, and Salamat v Canada
(Immigration Appeal Board) [1989] FCJ No 213, for the proposition that the Board
must consider all aspects of the claim, even if some aspects are not credible
and must not reach a conclusion that is inconsistent with the preponderance of
relevant evidence.
[27]
The Board
did not do any of these things. Rather, it considered the evidence given by
the applicant, including his oral testimony, his submitted documents, and his
affidavit. The Board gave specific reasons why it gave little weight to the
documents submitted. The Board had the opportunity to question the applicant
and observe his response. The Board has good reason to question the applicant’s
credibility. While he claimed to have graduated from university with a degree
in Arts and Letters, and to have studied English literature, he offered Macbeth
as evidence, but could not describe an element of the story; he then claimed to
have studied Canterbury Tales, but said Shakespeare was the author.
[28]
Counsel
for the Minister fairly conceded that on many of these findings the Board could
have reached a different conclusion. Counsel for the applicant, for his part,
identified clearly how alternative conclusions could have been rationally
reached. It is not the role of this Court to substitute its view on the
evidence; rather, the question is whether the decision is within the scope of
the discretion accorded to the Board, or put otherwise in the classic
formulation, within the range of reasonable outcomes based on the evidence
before the Board. In this case, while I agree with the applicant’s counsel
that different conclusions could have been reached, that is not the test. The
issue is whether the decision, viewed as whole, withstands scrutiny. For the
reasons noted, I find that it does.
[29]
This
application for judicial review is dismissed.
[30]
No
question has been proposed for certification and none arises.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT
is that
the application for judicial review be and is hereby
dismissed. No question for certification has been proposed and none arises.
"Donald
J. Rennie"
Email this Content