Date: 20140514

Docket: IMM-5460-13

Citation: 2014 FC 471

[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]

Montréal, Quebec, May 14, 2014

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I.                   Preliminary remarks

[1]               In this case, the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [RPD] determined that the applicant’s identity documents did not conclusively establish his identity. The identity documents had been obtained in an irregular manner and contained significant inconsistencies. Furthermore, the documents did not include any security features. The RPD therefore found those documents to be unreliable.

[2]               Considering these factors, the Court finds that it was entirely open to the RPD to find as it did. The applicant has not shown that the RPD’s main finding is unreasonable. The onus was on the applicant to establish his identity through acceptable documents. He did not succeed in doing so.

II.                Introduction

[3]               This is an application for judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], of a decision of the RPD, dated July 22, 2013, rejecting the applicant’s claim for protection as a refugee or a person in need of protection within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

III.             Facts

[4]               The applicant, Mamadou Saidou Diallo, declares himself to be a citizen of Guinea. According to the birth certificate in the record, he was born in 1995.

[5]               The applicant states that on January 3, 2011, his parents, Mamadou Bella Diallo and Aisata Baldé, died in an automobile accident. After his parents died, the applicant lived with his step-mother, Kadiatou Bah, with whom his father had three children. She soon started mistreating him. She prevented him from going to school, stopped feeding him and forced him to do housework.

[6]               With the help of his half-brother, Aliou, the applicant obtained fake identity documents to leave his country.

[7]               The applicant entered Canada on May 8, 2011, with a visa issued in the name of Ahmed Tidiane Bangoura, as an employee of Guinea’s ministry of the economy and finance, to take part in a training session from May 7 to 21, 2011. Ten days later, he made a refugee protection claim under the name of Mamadou Saidou Diallo.

[8]               On July 22, 2013, the RPD rejected the applicant’s refugee protection claim. That decision is the subject of this judicial review in this Court.

IV.             Decision under review

[9]               First, the RPD concluded that the applicant had not established his identity because of a lack of probative evidence substantiating his alleged name, Mamadou Saidou Diallo. The RPD found that the only pieces of identification filed by the applicant, a birth certificate and a student identity card, contained multiple inconsistencies which the applicant had been unable to adequately explain.

[10]           The RPD also concluded that the applicant was not credible. In its reasons, the RPD pointed out multiple contradictions in the applicant’s story which, taken as a whole, undermined his credibility. Moreover, it noted that, despite having been assisted by a representative from PRAIDA and having been represented by experienced legal counsel, the applicant had not provided any evidence corroborating the existence of his persecutor and had given very little evidence corroborating the death of his parents. This further undermined his credibility. The RPD also noted that the applicant had made no attempt to seek refuge elsewhere in his country of origin or to ask the authorities or other members of his family for protection.

[11]           Considering these unfavourable findings regarding the applicant’s credibility, the RPD dismissed the applicant’s refugee protection claim.

V.                Issue

[12]           Did the RPD err in making an unfavourable finding regarding the applicant’s credibility?

VI.             Relevant statutory provisions

[13]           Sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA apply in the present case:

VII.          Standard of review

[14]           This Court has held that the RPD’s findings on credibility are questions of fact and thus reviewable on a standard of reasonableness (Wu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 929; Aguebor v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 NR 315 (FCA)).

VIII.       Analysis

[15]           The applicant submits that the RPD made numerous unreasonable and capricious errors in its assessment of his credibility. He also alleges that the RPD imposed too heavy a burden on him by demanding extrinsic evidence to corroborate his allegations.

[16]           In this case, the Court admits having reservations about certain findings of fact made by the RPD: for example, the RPD’s finding that the applicant was not credible because he could not identify the exact location where his parents died. However, considering the other grounds raised by the RPD in finding that the applicant was not credible, the Court concludes that the RPD’s decision was reasonable. The Court is of the opinion that, when taken together, the other contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies noted by the RPD were sufficient to justify finding a lack of credibility.

[17]           However, the Court notes that the refugee protection claim could have been rejected at the identification stage, without going any further. It is therefore unnecessary to analyze the rest of the evidence to reject the claim. The Court refers to Uwitonze v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 61:

[32] In a situation where an applicant has not established identity, a negative conclusion ensues as to credibility and a disposal of a claim is usually the norm. As stated by this Court in Najam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 425:

[16] The proof of a claimant's identity is of central importance to his or her claim. I agree with the Respondent that if the identity of the claimant is not proven, the claim must fail; that means the Board need not pursue an analysis of the evidence in relation to other aspects of the claim. . . . [Emphasis in original.]

[18]           In the present case, the RPD determined that the applicant’s identity documents did not conclusively establish his identity. The identity documents were obtained in an irregular manner and contained significant inconsistencies. Furthermore, the documents did not have any security features. The RPD therefore found these documents to be unreliable.

[19]           Considering these factors, the Court finds that it was entirely open to the RPD to find as it did. The applicant has not shown that the RPD’s main finding is unreasonable. The onus was on the applicant to establish his identity through acceptable documents. He did not succeed in doing so.

[20]           It is not for the Court to reassess the evidence or to substitute its own assessment for the one made by the RPD (Martinez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 441), nor may the Court dissect the reasons of the RPD (Borate v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 679).

[21]           The Court finds that, when considered as a whole, the RPD’s finding fell within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes (Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708).

IX.             Conclusion

[22]           For all the reasons set out above, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the applicant’s application for judicial review be dismissed, with no question of general importance to be certified.

“Michel M.J. Shore”

Certified true translation

Michael Palles

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: