Docket: IMM-3927-11
Citation: 2011 FC 1497
Toronto, Ontario, December 19, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
|
|
WORKU DESSIE
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Worku
Dessie claims to fear persecution in Ethiopia as a result of his
involvement with the Unity for Justice and Democracy Party [UJDP], which
opposes the regime currently in power in that country. At the conclusion of the
hearing of Mr. Dessie’s application for judicial review, I advised the parties
that I would be granting the application. These are my reasons for that
decision.
Analysis
[2]
The
Board found that two details of Mr. Dessie’s story of persecution amounted to
“embellishments”. It did not, however, make a finding in clear and
unmistakeable terms that his story was untrue. Indeed, counsel for the
respondent agrees that the Board seemingly accepted that Mr. Dessie had been
arrested, detained and mistreated by government forces in 2009 because of his
involvement in political activities on behalf of the UJDP.
[3]
The
determinative question on this application is thus whether the Board’s finding
that Mr. Dessie does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia was
reasonable. In my view it was not, as it appears from the reasons that the
Board overlooked important evidence supporting Mr. Dessie’s claim.
[4]
The
reasons given by the Board in this case were brief, and the issue of
forward-looking risk was dealt with in just two paragraphs. After discussing
the easing of political tensions in Ethiopia in paragraph eight of
the reasons, the Board goes on in the next paragraph to state that “[c]redible
reports on Ethiopia indicate
that unless an individual is a prominent activist within the opposition
parties, he is unlikely to attract the interest of authorities”. The reasons
then go on to state that “there is no objective evidence to indicate
that members of the opposition are subject to routine persecution” [my
emphasis].
[5]
There
was, however, substantial evidence before the Board that showed that
rank-and-file opposition members are routinely persecuted in Ethiopia, and that
government mistreatment of its opponents is not limited to members of opposition
parties, but extends to those who are merely suspected of sympathizing with
opposition parties.
[6]
Reports
from the United States Department of State [DOS], the United Kingdom Home
Office, and Amnesty International all attest to widespread arbitrary arrests,
detention, and torture of opposition party members and supporters continuing
through 2009 and 2010. Indeed, the U.S. DOS report refers to hundreds of
opposition members and supporters being arrested in just one three month period
in 2009.
[7]
It
is true that the Board is not required to refer to every piece of evidence in
the record, and will be presumed to have considered all of the evidence before
it: see, for example, Hassan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and
Immigration), (1992), 147 N.R. 317, 36 A.C.W.S. (3d) 635 (F.C.A.).
[8]
That
said, the more important the evidence that is not specifically mentioned and
analyzed in the Board’s reasons, the more willing a court may be to infer that
the Board made an erroneous finding of fact without regard to the evidence: see
Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1998),
157 F.T.R. 35, [1998] F.C.J. No. 1425 (Q.L.) at paras.14-17. The evidence here
was directly relevant to the central issue in the case, and was thus very
important.
[9]
Moreover,
this is not just a situation where the Board failed to specifically refer to
evidence contrary to its findings. In this case, the Board stated quite
categorically that there was “no objective evidence” to show that
members of the opposition are subject to routine persecution in Ethiopia, when there
was in fact substantial evidence in the record leading to the opposite
conclusion. This leads to the inescapable inference that important portions of
the country condition evidence were overlooked.
Conclusion
[10]
As
a consequence, I have concluded that the Board’s decision was unreasonable and
the application for judicial review is allowed.
Certification
[11]
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 allowed, and the matter is remitted to a
differently constituted panel for re-determination; and
2.
No serious question of general importance is certified.
“Anne
Mactavish”
Email this Content