Docket: IMM-4352-15
Citation:
2016 FC 582
Ottawa, Ontario, May 26, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
EGBE MANKA
EBIKA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
|
|
Respondents
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Introduction
[1]
The Applicant, a citizen of Cameroon, claimed
refugee protection on the basis that, as a lesbian, she would be persecuted in
her home country. This judicial review challenges a decision of the Refugee
Protection Division [RPD] finding that there was “no
credible basis” for the claim.
II.
Background
[2]
The RPD found that the Applicant was not a
credible witness and had not provided sufficient trustworthy and reliable
evidence that she was a lesbian and that she was sought by police or sexually
assaulted in Cameroon because she was a lesbian.
[3]
The general credibility finding was based on
significant omissions from the Applicant’s Basis of Claim [BOC], contradictions
between the Applicant’s testimony and documentary evidence as well as
irregularities with documents produced.
[4]
The Applicant’s refugee claim bore a striking
resemblance to a claim made earlier by her half-sister. The core stories are
almost identical.
The
Applicant had failed to mention the existence of her half-sister, alleging that
she was unaware of her existence despite listing the same residential address
on their respective study permit applications.
[5]
The RPD had a number of other credibility
concerns aside from the half-sister’s contrived claim – these included
vagueness as to her lover’s name; inconsistency as to membership in the
Humanity First Cameroon organization; and direct contradictions in her
narrative.
[6]
No weight was given to her testimony. Her
documentary evidence from Cameroon was found to be false and her Canadian
documents were given little weight.
[7]
The Applicant relied on a psychological report
but it was discounted because it never mentioned the Applicant’s alleged rape
incident – a seminal event.
[8]
The Applicant also submitted two pictures of her
in a Rainbow Refugee Society t-shirt and a letter from a volunteer at the
Rainbow Refugee Society supporting the claim of being a lesbian. Both pieces of
evidence were rejected for insufficiency – the photos did not establish sexual
orientation and the letter was based on attendance at LGBTQ events.
[9]
The RPD, having examined all the evidence,
reached a “no credible basis” finding.
III.
Analysis
[10]
The standard of review regarding credibility
findings is reasonableness (AB v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2014 FC 899).
[11]
A finding of “no
credible basis” is a severe finding with significant consequences (loss
of right to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division). It is more than a
credibility finding (Pournaminivas v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2015 FC 1099). Therefore, to make such a finding, the RPD must examine and
reject a piece of relevant evidence so that there is no credible evidence which
could support a claim.
[12]
In this case, the RPD did exactly that. The
Member took each piece of relevant evidence and assessed it. Having rejected
each piece of evidence, there was nothing left upon which a claim could be
based. Both the oral and documentary evidence failed to meet the standard of
sufficiency.
IV.
Conclusion
[13]
Therefore, this judicial review is dismissed.
There is no question for certification.
Email this Content