Date:
20130425
Docket:
IMM-4974-12
Citation:
2013 FC 433
Ottawa, Ontario,
April 25, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
BETWEEN:
|
|
ISRAEL COBENA ANANE
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRAION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Israel
Cobena Anane [the Applicant] seeks judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1)
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act]
of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board [the Board], dated April 24, 2012, wherein the Board concluded that the
Applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection [the
Decision].
[2]
For
the following reasons, the application will be dismissed.
Background
[3]
The
Applicant is a 43 year-old male, a Pentecostal pastor, and a citizen of Ghana who fears persecution on the basis of his membership in a social group. He alleges
that he is perceived as a homosexual and also claims that he faces persecution
because of his religion. He entered Canada on June 25, 2011 and made his
refugee claim on June 27, 2011.
[4]
In
his Personal Information Form [PIF], dated August 3, 2011, the Applicant states
that he is a Christian and an ordained Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
He believes in equal rights and justice for all irrespective of colour, creed
and sexual orientation. However, homosexuality is illegal in Ghana. Those identified as a homosexuals face the risk of vigilante justice. Turning to the
authorities is not an option as one then risks prosecution.
[5]
After
graduation from the Bethel Christian Church International Bible School in Koforidua the Applicant was offered a position as a Pastor. He remained in that
position until 2011 without incident.
[6]
In
February 2011 a political crisis in the Ivory Coast caused many Ivorian
nationals to move to Ghana. Some of the new arrivals joined the Applicant’s church
and its choir.
[7]
On
February 11, 2011 a church elder came to the Applicant’s home to tell him that
one of the new members of the church, an Ivorian national and member of the church
choir [“A”], had been seen by one of the church members kissing another brother
of the church [“B”]. The Applicant was told that, but for the intervention of
one of the church leaders, A and B would have been lynched.
[8]
On
March 5, 2011 A and B were summoned to the Applicant’s house. At the meeting,
the elders insisted that A and B be suspended from the choir.
[9]
On
April 16, 2011 another meeting was held involving A and B, the Applicant and
the Church Board of Trustees. After many hours of discussion, A and B confessed
to being homosexual. This caused anger and the Trustees demanded that A and B
be handed over to the police. However, the Applicant refused and instead gave A
and B shelter in his home. The Trustees did not approve of the Applicant’s conduct
and reported to the police that the Applicant was harbouring A and B.
[10]
On
May 22, 2011 the Applicant was summoned to the local police station and was
interrogated about his sexuality. The Applicant was asked about his nephews who
reside with him. Officers also asked why the Applicant was not married.
Finally, the Applicant was asked about A and B and was ordered to surrender
them. However, when he returned home from the station, he ignored the order and
advised A and B to leave his home.
[11]
On
Friday, June 10, 2011 a group of men – some members of the church and some
Muslim youth from the community – stormed the Applicant’s home and demanded
that he hand over A and B. The men chanted that the Applicant was a homosexual
and did not deserve to live. The men became more hostile when they realized
that A and B were not in the house and they threatened to kill the Applicant if
he did not produce the “homos”.
[12]
The
Applicant went to the police immediately after this incident but received no
assistance because the police also demanded that he produce A and B. A female
officer suggested to the Applicant that if in fact he was not a “homo”, he should
marry to “shame” his accusers. The Applicant was disgusted by this response to
his request for police protection.
[13]
On
Sunday, June 12, 2011 the Church Board of Trustees informed the Applicant that
he was suspended from his position pending an investigation of his background.
This caused a lot of rumours in the community and on June 14, 2011, four men
accosted the Applicant while he was on his way home. The Applicant walked away
with a bleeding nose and a cut on his mouth. He did not go to the police
because they had made it clear that he would not receive their protection.
[14]
The
Applicant says that he then decided to go into hiding with a pastor in Accra. While there, the Applicant learned that the police were angry and had visited his
home on June 17, 2011 in order to arrest him for failing to hand over A and B.
The Applicant’s nephew told the police that he did not know where the Applicant
was and that he had not seen him for over a week. His nephew was told to tell
the Applicant that, if he knew what was good for him, he would return to
Koforidua immediately.
[15]
At
this point, the Applicant felt that his only option was to leave the country.
The Applicant alleges that, since being in Canada, he has heard from his
nephews that the search for him continues and that they were twice summoned by
the local police and questioned about his whereabouts.
The Evidence
[16]
At
the hearing the Applicant relied in part on written evidence which included:
•
a
Statutory Declaration dated November 9, 2011 made by Rev. Gideon Tetteth who is
also a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He confirmed the main facts set
out in the Applicant’s PIF narrative;
•
a
letter of June 12, 2011 suspending the Applicant as Pastor pending an
investigation into whether he is a homosexual.
The Decision
[17]
The
Board did not find the Applicant’s evidence was credible. As well, the Board
found that he had an internal flight alternative [IFA] in the cities of Kumasi, Secondi-Takoradi and Tamale. I will first consider the IFA.
[18]
The
Board addressed the two-pronged test (Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 FC 706 (CA); Thirunavukkarasu v
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 FC 589 (CA)).
[19]
The
Board noted that the Applicant fears Muslim youth in Koforidua, members of the
community and the police. The Board concluded that the threat from the Muslim
youth and the members of the community is localized and therefore the Applicant
could seek refuge from these two groups by relocating. Moreover, the three
cities identified above are a substantial distance from the Applicant’s home in
Koforidua.
[20]
With
respect to the Applicant’s fear of the Ghanaian police, the Board identified a
number of factors that suggested that an IFA was a viable option. First, the
Applicant had been out of Ghana for ten months at the time of the hearing and
the Board found that he had not provided persuasive evidence to show that the
police in Koforidua continued to search for him. There was also no evidence to
suggest that there was any nation-wide interest in his case. The Board acknowledged
that he might still be at risk in Koforidua, but was not satisfied that the
police would seek him out in other parts of Ghana, especially since he does not
have a criminal record and there is no outstanding warrant for his arrest.
[21]
The
Board turned to the documentary evidence dealing with policing in Ghana and noted that the Ghana Police Service is divided into twelve administrative regions
and has a force of little over 23,000 personnel for a population of 24 million.
While specialized police units are maintained in Accra, there are significant
barriers to extending such services nationwide. Citing these barriers and the
widespread perception of police ineptitude, the Board determined that the
police are incompetent and not equipped to search for the Applicant throughout
the country.
[22]
Furthermore,
the Board was not persuaded that the police even maintain an interest in the
whereabouts of A and B. It noted that it took the police almost one month to
follow-up with the Applicant after they demanded that he hand them over.
[23]
The
Board was also not satisfied that the Applicant has a problematic profile. The
church over which he presided is one of two churches in Ghana of that denomination and his congregation of 500 individuals makes up approximately
0.1% of Koforidua’s population of 500,000. In response to the Applicant’s
assertion that he was well known because he conducted open crusades in the
city, the Board found that although he may be known locally, he is not known
throughout Ghana.
[24]
The
Board also addressed the IFA in relation to the unique nature of the
Applicant’s claim, namely that he is being persecuted because he is perceived
as a homosexual. However, since he is not a homosexual and had never been
so perceived in the years before he sheltered A and B, the Board concluded that
he would not be perceived as a homosexual in any of the IFA locations.
[25]
Regarding
the second prong of the test, the Board was of the view that it was not
unreasonable for the Applicant to live in Kumasi, Secondi-Takoradi or Tamale.
The Applicant had not provided evidence to indicate that he was unfamiliar with
cultural issues and norms in any of the three cities. The Board also took into
account that the Applicant had travelled half way across the world and settled
into a home and job in Toronto. This indicated that the Applicant was a mobile
individual with the capacity to relocate effectively.
[26]
The
Applicant had said that fear of persecution on religious grounds was also a
reason for his refugee claim. However, the Board held that as a Christian, the
Applicant would be familiar with religious practices in the three IFA
locations. The Board took into account that the majority of Ghana’s Christian population, which makes up 69% of the country’s total population, resides
in the southern areas of the country. All three of the IFA cities are located
in the southern part of the country.
[27]
Although
it acknowledged that the Applicant would have to join a different congregation,
the Board noted that he had already done so in Canada. Highlighting the
Applicant’s education and ten years of work experience, the Board determined
that there was no persuasive evidence to suggest that he would be at a greater
disadvantage of finding employment than any other Ghanaian in Kumasi,
Secondi-Takoradi or Tamale. The Board also addressed language barriers and
found that there were none.
[28]
Based
on this analysis, the Board determined that Kumasi, Secondi-Takoradi and Tamale
are reasonable locations, in all circumstances, for the Applicant to seek
refuge and that he would not be at risk under sections 96 or 97 of the Act in
those locations.
The Applicant’s Issues
[29]
Is
the Board’s IFA finding reasonable given its failure to consider whether there
was adequate state protection for the Applicant?
[30]
Did
the Board err in its assessment of the Applicant’s credibility?
Discussion
[31]
In
my view, the Board was not required to consider the issue of state protection
given its conclusions that i) the Applicant’s risk was local; ii) he did not
have a national profile; iii) the local police had no serious interest in him;
iv) the police lacked the means to search for him beyond Koforidua even if they
were interested; and v) there was no reason to think he would again be
perceived to be homosexual.
Conclusion
[32]
In
my view the IFA finding was reasonable. Accordingly, there is no need to
address the Board’s concerns about the Applicant’s credibility.
[33]
No
question was posed for certification pursuant to section 74(d) of the Act.
ORDER
THIS
COURT ORDERS that:
The application
is hereby dismissed.
“Sandra J. Simpson”
Email this Content