Date:
20130312
Docket:
IMM-3677-12
Citation:
2013 FC 227
Ottawa, Ontario,
March 12, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
CHARLES KAYITARE
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Mr
Charles Kayitare sought refugee protection in Canada based on his fear of
persecution as a person of mixed Tutsi-Hutu race in Rwanda. Many of his Tutsi
relatives, including his mother, were killed during the genocide of the 1990s.
Mr Kayitare fled to Congo with his father and siblings. His father died along
the way and Mr Kayitare became permanently separated from his brother. Mr
Kayitare returned to Rwanda in 1994 after the Rwandese Patriotic Front took
control of Kigali in July of that year.
[2]
In
2008, Mr Kayitare was summoned to testify before the Gacaca courts. He was
concerned that he would be forced to take sides as between the Hutu and the Tutsi.
Before he actually testified, someone threw a stone at him, smashing the window
of his car. He considered this to be a warning against testifying. He fled Rwanda and claimed refugee protection in Canada based on his fear of persecution as a person of
mixed race, and for his failure to appear before the Gacaca courts.
[3]
A
panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed Mr Kayitare’s claim. It
found that his testimony lacked credibility. It also found that conditions in Rwanda have changed since he left; in particular, the Gacaca courts are no longer in
operation.
[4]
Mr
Kayitare argues that the Board’s decision was unreasonable. He suggests that
the Board’s reasons do not make clear why it disbelieved him or what parts of
his testimony it doubted. He asks me to quash the decision and order another panel
of the Board to reconsider his claim.
[5]
I
can find no basis for overturning the Board’s decision. I find that the Board’s
reasons make sufficiently clear why it found Mr Kayitare’s testimony lacked
credibility. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
[6]
The
sole issue is whether the Board’s credibility findings were unreasonable.
II. The Board’s Decision
[7]
The
Board found that Mr Kayitare’s testimony overall was evasive and unforthcoming.
It cited a number of areas where the evidence was unclear:
• Mr
Kayitare did not know who threw the stone at him, and he did not experience any
other consequences of having been summoned to testify;
• Mr
Kayitare could not definitively identify anyone whom he feared; he mentioned
his mother’s relatives, yet could not explain why they might wish to harm him. He
speculated that they might have expected him to testify against his Hutu
uncles, but he had never received any direct threats from them;
• Regarding
an incident in 1995, when he was struck from behind, Mr Kayitare could not say
who was responsible, but said it was either his mother’s or his neighbour’s
relatives;
• Mr
Kayitare testified that a person was calling and threatening his wife in Rwanda. He speculated that this person could be associated with the Gacaca courts, but he
had personally never received any threats. He said that his wife had complained
to police, but her letters did not mention this fact.
[8]
Finally,
the Board found that circumstances had changed since Mr Kayitare left Rwanda. The Gacaca courts have wound up. In any case, Mr Kayitare had not personally
suffered any particularly appalling treatment.
III. Were the Board’s
credibility findings unreasonable?
[9]
Mr
Kayitare submits that the Board seemed to have made a general, adverse
credibility finding against him, and yet simultaneously found that a number of
the incidents he testified about had actually occurred. He suggests that the
Board’s reasons were inconsistent and confusing, contrary to its obligation to
provide a clear rationale for making adverse credibility findings.
[10]
I
agree that the Board’s decision could have been clearer. By stating that Mr
Kayitare’s testimony “overall” lacked credibility, the Board suggested that it
did not believe any of his evidence. However, it seems to have accepted that
someone threw a stone at Mr Kayitare in 2008 and that he had been assaulted in
1995. The Board referred to documents supporting these incidents – photos of
the damaged car window and a hospital record – and made no adverse comment on
them.
[11]
As
for the other evidence that concerned the Board, namely Mr Kayitare’s inability
to identify the alleged agents of persecution, the Board noted the various
possibilities Mr Kayitare had identified – his mother’s relatives, his neighbour’s
relatives, or someone else. Here, Mr Kayitare’s evidence was clearly
inconsistent and justified an adverse credibility finding.
[12]
As
I read the Board’s decision, it appeared to accept that Mr Kayitare had
experienced some adverse events, particularly an assault in 1995 and a stone-throwing
in 2008. However, it doubted Mr Kayitare’s testimony that he was the object of
any persecution. On that issue, it found that Mr Kayitare’s evidence “overall”
was not credible. Mr Kayitare had simply been unable to identify any agent of
persecution. He suggested various possibilities but his evidence was
inconsistent.
[13]
Therefore,
I cannot conclude that the Board erred when it found Mr Kayitare’s testimony
not to be credible. Its conclusion was not unreasonable based on the facts and
the law.
[14]
The
Board went on to conclude that there were no compelling circumstances that
would justify granting Mr Kayitare refugee protection given the improved
circumstances in Rwanda. However, that was an alternative finding premised on
the assumption that Mr Kayitare had made out a valid refugee claim. Given the
Board’s reasonable conclusion that the evidence did not support Mr Kayitare’s
claim, I need not address the question whether there were compelling
circumstances justifying a decision in his favour.
IV. Conclusion and
Disposition
[15]
In
my view, the Board reasonably concluded that Mr Kayitare’s testimony did not
support his claim for refugee protection. While the Board accepted that Mr
Kayitare had experienced some adverse events, it reasonably concluded that he
had not identified any particular source of persecution. Accordingly, I cannot
find that the Board’s decision was unreasonable and must dismiss this
application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general
importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed;
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content