Docket: IMM-7120-13
Citation:
2015 FC 37
Ottawa, Ontario, January 12, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Gagné
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JASMINE BOLUKA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
Ms. Jasmine Boluka, an 18 year-old citizen of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo [DRC], seeks judicial review of a decision
dated September 30, 2013 of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The RPD did not find the applicant had
a well-founded fear of persecution as a victim of forced marriage under section
96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
SC 2001, c 27 [Act], for lack of credibility.
[2]
The applicant was 16 years old when she filed
her claim and 17 years old when she testified before the RPD, so she designated
her uncle who lives in Canada, the half-brother of her father, to represent
her. However, at the time of the hearing, the uncle’s wife assumed this role.
The applicant argues that the RPD erred by failing to consider Chairperson
Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues [Guideline
3], Chairperson Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-related
Persecution [Guideline 4] and also submits the overall credibility
analysis was not reasonable.
II.
Background
[3]
The applicant’s narrative begins on February 14,
2008, after the disappearance of her father. As a result of the disappearance,
her father’s employer, who was a wealthy local businessman, had taken it upon
himself to support the applicant’s family financially and look after the
children’s studies.
[4]
One day, this man asked the applicant’s mother
for the applicant’s hand in marriage. The applicant immediately refused, she
was 16 years old at the time, he was older than her father, already married
with children and she had always considered him as a second father. Before
leaving the applicant’s home, the man threatened to withdraw financial support
and claimed that if the applicant did not marry him, the family would have to
reimburse him for all he had given them thus far. He also said he would offer
the applicant’s aunts and uncles money on condition she married him.
[5]
Several days later, the applicant’s uncles
informed the applicant that they accepted money in the form of a pre-dowry for
her marriage to her father’s employer despite the lack of consent on her
behalf, and that of her mother’s. According to them, both did not have a say in
the marriage, and the decision was final. She argued with them to express her
opinion and they beat her, also ordering she stay with the man for a week as a
trial period; subsequently her mom decided to plan the applicant’s escape.
[6]
At the end of July, the applicant was in hiding
at the home of her mother’s friend in the municipality of Matete which,
according to her Personal Information Form [PIF] narrative, was located in
Kinshasa. The uncles had gone to find the applicant at her home. For refusing
to disclose her location, the uncles beat the applicant’s mother. She
subsequently had to be hospitalized.
[7]
Given her father’s employer was influential,
wealthy, and adamant on finding her, she spent the most part of August and
September in hiding. For fear of being found, suffering reprisal and death, she
left for Brazzaville on September 25, 2012 leaving to Canada the next day.
III.
Decision Under Review
[8]
The RPD notes that while the applicant was 17
years old at the time of the hearing, she was almost an adult, educated and in
a state to testify. In light of these factors, the RPD expected nothing less
than a clear testimony on behalf of the applicant and consistency with her
file. Short of its expectations, the RPD found Ms. Boluka not credible as a
result of the following:
i)
Inconsistency as to when the father’s employer
came to her family’s home to ask her hand in marriage, the number of times he
visited her and whether he was accompanied; when faced with the
inconsistencies, the applicant explained there were too many events and she
failed to remember;
ii)
The contents of exhibit P-5 (the pre-dowry
document); the applicant did not read the document sent to her by her mother
and was unaware that it consisted of items other than money;
iii)
An omission in her PIF corresponding with her
testimony, that her aunts beat her, alongside her uncles;
iv)
Incoherence between exhibit P-3 (transfer of
guardianship to the uncle in Canada) which mentions the forced marriage and
that her mom had decided to plan her escape; the applicant explained she did not
know why the exhibit was signed by her mother on July 5, 2012 though the
applicant testified that it was on July 31, 2012 that her mother planned the
escape;
v)
Inconsistency between her testimony and PIF on
the date her mom was beaten and subsequently taken to the hospital;
vi)
Difficulty in remembering the municipality of
Maluku, her place of hiding prior to departing the DRC; while in her PIF, the
applicant specified the municipality.
IV.
Issues and Standard of Review
[9]
This application for judicial review raises a
sole issue:
•
Taking into consideration the overall evidence
and Guidelines, is the RPD’s credibility analysis reasonable?
[10]
The applicable standard of review is
reasonableness (Nour v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2012 FC 805 at para 14 [Nour]; Hernandez v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 106 at para 13).
V.
Analysis
[11]
The applicant submits that the RPD was required
in the circumstances of the present case to consider the Guidelines and that
there was no evidence it did so despite a brief mention in the impugned
decision (Higbogun v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2010 FC 445 at paras 55 – 58 [Higbogun]; Khon v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 143 at para 19; Sy v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 379 at para 14.)
[12]
Accordingly, the RPD clearly failed to apply
Guideline 3 because: (i) the panel neglected to mention in its reasoning that
she began to cry when discussing her mother’s beating; (ii) it did not consider
the fear and emotions of the Applicant in relation to traumatic events; and
(iii) it failed to consider whether, given the totality of the evidence, it
could infer the details of certain gaps in her testimony.
[13]
As regards Guideline 4, the applicant asserts
the RPD was at least required to apply Part B to gauge the plausibility of the
applicant’s narrative regarding her forced marriage, and that “rather than analyzing whether the key basis of the Applicant’s
claim was credible or plausible, the panel focused on minor alleged
inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence”. The applicant maintains
that nevertheless, the RPD erred by not explaining why it did not consider the
Guidelines in assessing the applicant’s evidence. The applicant heavily relies
on similarities with Nour at paras 36 and 41 and Doug v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1151 at para 6.
[14]
Nevertheless, according to the applicant, the
six separate negative credibility findings are unreasonable considering the narrative,
testimony and documentary evidence and they do not justify the conclusion
reached (Bukuru v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010
FC 817 at para 21). The applicant argues that the Guidelines support the
reasonableness of her explanations to the alleged inconsistencies and
omissions.
[15]
The respondent points to the impugned decision
which explicitly mentions the Guidelines, the age and education of the
applicant and argues there is no evidence she did not understand the nature of
the proceedings. In addition, the respondent asserts, by relying on the
following: “the mere fact that the applicant was not
considered credible is insufficient to show that the Board was insensitive to
her situation” (Villavincencio Lopez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2011 FC 1349 at paras 23-24; Semextant v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 29 at paras 27-29).
[16]
The applicant is required to demonstrate a lack
of understanding or insensitivity on the RPD`s part to convince the Court that
the Guidelines have not been applied (Sandoval Mares v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 297 at para 43). Further, this Court
has found that the RPD`s failure to specifically refer to the Guidelines in its
reasons does not, in and of itself, demonstrate insensitivity (Akinbinu v
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 581) and mere
failure to consider the Guidelines is not fatal to a decision (Higbogun,
above at para 65).
[17]
I have difficulty detecting insensitivity or
absence of contextualization on the part of the RPD in its negative credibility
findings and its treatment of those findings upon considering the applicant’s
explanations, particularly as an example, when discussing the trauma she experienced
and the number of times the employer came to see her (Certified Tribunal
Transcript, p 151):
[…]
PAR LA COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- La
deuxième fois que votre prétendant est venu, il est accompagné de vos oncles
que vous dites.
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Oui.
PAR LA COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- Est-ce
qu’il y avait vos tantes aussi?
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Oui.
PAR LA COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- Et on
parle toujours de même oncles et tantes?
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Oui.
PAR LA COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- Selon—là
vous dites maintenant que, bon, la deuxième fois, donc, en juin 2012, vos
oncles et tantes étaient avec votre prétendant. Votre prétendant a dit que vous
deviez vous marier; sinon, vous deviez rembourser tout ce qu’ il a payé pour
vos besoins; c’est ca?
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Oui.
PAR LA COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- Mais
selon le récit, vous dites avant de partir, bon, le prétendant a dit à votre
mère que vous devez devenir sa femme, sinon il ne pourra plus subvenir à vos
besoins, en plus de tout rembourser; donc ça, c’est en juin 2012.
PAR LA
DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Non, c est en juillet.
PAR LA COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- Ça c’est
en juillet 2012?
PAR LA
DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Oui.
PAR LA COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- Dans le
récit—
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Le jour
même où je me suis fait battue.
PAR LA COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- Donc,
vous dites que c’est en juillet. Donc, ça veut dire que votre prétendant est
venu en juillet 2012 chez vous aussi avec les oncles et tantes?
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Pardon?
PAR LA COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- Vous
dites – quand j’ai lu votre récit, « Avant de partir, mon prétendant dit à
ma mère que je dois devenir sa femme, sinon il ne pourra plus subvenir à nos
besoins ».
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Oui.
PAR LA COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- « En
plus de rembourser tout ce qu’il a payé pour notre survie ». Vous dites
que c’est en juillet 2012?
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Oui.
PAR COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- Ça veut
dire que votre prétendant était chez vous en juillet 2012?
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Je me
souviens pas tellement parce qu’il y avait trop événements qui se passaient.
PAR COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- Parce
que tout à l heure vous avez mentionné que le (inaudible) seulement deux fois
chez vous en mai 2012, en juin 2012.
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Je me
souviens en mai. Oui.
PAR COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- Vous ne
vous souvenez pas, vous dites?
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Non.
[…]
(Certified Tribunal
Transcript, p 172)
PAR LA COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- Donc
l’audience recommence. Je veux surtout savoir, madame, tout à l’heure vous avez
mentionné que, en juillet 2012, c’est vos oncles et tantes qui vous ont battue
et que ils étaient venus avec votre prétendant à la maison. Mais selon votre
récit dans votre FRP, vous mentionnez seulement que c’est vos oncles qui sont
venus.
PAR LE CONSEIL DE LA DEMANDEUR (à la
commissaire)
- Vous
faites référence à quelle ligne?
[…]
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Oui.
PAR LA
COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- D’ accord. Mais pourquoi dans votre récit vous mentionnez
seulement que c’est vos oncles qui sont venus. Vous mentionnez que c’est les
oncles qui vous ont battue. Vous n’avez pas mentionné vos tantes.
PAR LA DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Non,
parce que ce récit je l’ai raconté à mon oncle.
PAR LA COMMISSAIRE (à la demandeure)
- O.k.
PAR LA
DEMANDEURE (à la commissaire)
- Oui, je l’ai juste raconté a mon oncle et lui-même il l’a
tappé à l’ordinateur.
[…]
[18]
On this last point, I note that the explanation
provided by the applicant is inconsistent with the affidavit filed in support
of her application for judicial review; her uncle did not type the PIF
narrative, a third person did:
21. The minor differences between my PIF
narrative and my testimony before the RPD are due to mistakes made by the
person who typed up my narrative. When I arrived in Canada, I told my story to
my uncle, who in turn told the story to the person who typed up the form;
[19]
Further, a review of the transcript of the
hearing before the RPD does not display signs of psychological distress on
behalf of the applicant or signs that she had difficulty testifying (Higbogun,
above at para 49; Evans v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration),
2011 FC 444 at para 18), nor did it display that she did not understand the
nature of her oath or have any perception problems. Finally, no genuine memory
difficulties transpire: the applicant only claimed not to remember the sequence
of events when actually confronted at the hearing with some difficulties in her
testimony.
[20]
In my view, a gap in the evidence, upon which
the RPD is invited to fill by inferring evidence pursuant to Guideline 3, does
not alleviate serious omissions that go to the heart of the claim. While not
all the inconsistencies and omissions noted by the RPD were indeed serious,
there are some irregularities that are definitely not microscopic; most
particularly, as reproduced in the excerpt above, the applicant omitted that
her paternal aunts beat her alongside her uncles and she could not remember
when her persecutor visited her for the first time and how many times he did
so.
VI.
Conclusion
[21]
For these reasons, the application for judicial
review will be dismissed. The parties did not propose any question of general
importance for certification and none arises from this case.
Email this Content