Docket: IMM-362-15
Citation:
2016 FC 116
Ottawa, Ontario, February 2, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
GOLAM MUSTAFA,
TASLIMA BEGUM AND MUHTASIM MUSTAFA ABID
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Introduction
[1]
This is a judicial review of a decision by the
Refugee Protection Division [RPD] which determined that the Applicants were
excluded from refugee protection on account of serious non-political crimes
committed in the United States.
[2]
The crimes related to the use of identity
documents obtained through fraudulent means.
The
exclusion is pursuant to Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, [1969] CTS 6, 189 UNTS 150
[Convention].
II.
Relevant Legislation
[3]
For ease of reference, the most relevant
provisions are set out below:
Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27
|
122 (1) No person shall, in order to
contravene this Act,
|
122 (1)
Commet une infraction quiconque, en vue de contrevenir à la présente loi et
s’agissant de tout document — passeport, visa ou autre, qu’il soit canadien
ou étranger — pouvant ou censé établir l’identité d’une personne :
|
|
(a) possess a passport, visa or other document, of Canadian or foreign
origin, that purports to establish or that could be used to establish a
person’s identity;
|
a) l’a en sa possession;
|
|
(b) use such a document, including for the purpose of entering or
remaining in Canada; or
|
b) l’utilise, notamment pour entrer au Canada
ou y séjourner;
|
|
(c) import, export or deal in such a document.
|
c) l’importe ou l’exporte, ou en fait le
commerce.
|
|
(2) Proof of the matters referred to
in subsection (1) in relation to a forged document or a document that is
blank, incomplete, altered or not genuine is, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, proof that the person intends to contravene this Act.
|
(2) La
preuve de tout fait visé au paragraphe (1) quant à un document laissé en
blanc, incomplet, modifié, contrefait ou illégitime vaut, sauf preuve
contraire, preuve de l’intention de contrevenir à la présente loi.
|
|
123 (1) Every person who contravenes
|
123 (1)
L’auteur de l’infraction visée :
|
|
(a) paragraph 122(1)(a) is guilty of an offence and liable on
conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment of up to five years; and
|
a) à l’alinéa 122(1)a) est passible,
sur déclaration de culpabilité par mise en accusation, d’un emprisonnement
maximal de cinq ans;
|
|
(b) paragraph 122(1)(b) or (c) is guilty of an offence
and liable on conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment of up to 14
years.
|
b) aux alinéas 122(1)b) ou c)
est passible, sur déclaration de culpabilité par mise en accusation, d’un
emprisonnement maximal de quatorze ans.
|
|
(2) The court, in determining the
penalty to be imposed, shall take into account whether
|
(2) Le
tribunal tient compte dans l’infliction de la peine des circonstances
suivantes :
|
|
(a) the commission of the offence was
for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal
organization as defined in subsection 121.1(1); and
|
a)
l’infraction a été commise au profit ou sous la direction d’une organisation
criminelle — au sens du paragraphe 121.1(1) — ou en association avec elle;
|
|
(b) the commission of the offence was
for profit, whether or not any profit was realized.
|
b)
l’infraction a été commise en vue de tirer un profit, que celui-ci ait été ou
non réalisé.
|
|
…
|
…
|
|
133 A person who has claimed refugee
protection, and who came to Canada directly or indirectly from the country in
respect of which the claim is made, may not be charged with an offence under
section 122, paragraph 124(1)(a) or section 127 of this Act or under
section 57, paragraph 340(c) or section 354, 366, 368, 374 or 403 of
the Criminal Code, in relation to the coming into Canada of the
person, pending disposition of their claim for refugee protection or if
refugee protection is conferred.
|
133
L’auteur d’une demande d’asile ne peut, tant qu’il n’est statué sur sa
demande, ni une fois que l’asile lui est conféré, être accusé d’une infraction
visée à l’article 122, à l’alinéa 124(1)a) ou à l’article 127 de la
présente loi et à l’article 57, à l’alinéa 340c) ou aux articles 354,
366, 368, 374 ou 403 du Code criminel, dès lors qu’il est arrivé directement
ou indirectement au Canada du pays duquel il cherche à être protégé et à la
condition que l’infraction ait été commise à l’égard de son arrivée au
Canada.
|
United Nations
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,
1951, [1969] CTS 6, 189 UNTS 150
Article 1F. The
provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to
whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
…
(b) he has committed a serious
non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to
that country as a refugee;
Criminal Code
of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46
|
57 (1) Every one who, while in or out
of Canada,
|
57 (1)
Est coupable d’un acte criminel et passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de
quatorze ans quiconque, étant au Canada ou à l’étranger, selon le cas :
|
|
(a) forges a passport, or
|
a) fait un faux passeport;
|
|
(b) knowing that a passport is forged
|
b) sachant qu’un passeport est faux :
|
|
(i) uses, deals with or acts on it, or
|
(i) soit s’en sert, le traite ou lui donne
suite,
|
|
(ii) causes or attempts to cause any person to use, deal with or act
on it, as if the passport were genuine,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding fourteen years.
|
(ii) soit fait, ou tente de faire, accomplir
l’un des actes visés au sous-alinéa (i).
|
|
(2) Every one who, while in or out of
Canada, for the purpose of procuring a passport for himself or any other
person or for the purpose of procuring any material alteration or addition to
any such passport, makes a written or an oral statement that he knows is
false or misleading
|
(2)
Quiconque au Canada ou à l’étranger, afin d’obtenir un passeport pour
lui-même ou pour une autre personne ou afin d’obtenir une modification ou une
addition importante à un tel passeport, fait une déclaration écrite ou orale
qu’il sait être fausse ou trompeuse est coupable :
|
|
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence
and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
|
a) soit
d’un acte criminel et passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de deux ans;
|
|
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable
on summary conviction.
|
b) soit
d’une infraction punissable sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure
sommaire.
|
|
…
|
…
|
|
(5) In this section, passport
has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Canadian Passport Order.
|
(5) Au
présent article, passeport s’entend au sens de l’article 2 du Décret
sur les passeports canadiens.
|
|
...
|
…
|
|
366 (1) Every one commits forgery who
makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with intent
|
366 (1)
Commet un faux quiconque fait un faux document le sachant faux, avec
l’intention, selon le cas :
|
|
(a) that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine, to the
prejudice of any one whether within Canada or not; or
|
a) qu’il soit employé ou qu’on y donne
suite, de quelque façon, comme authentique, au préjudice de quelqu’un, soit
au Canada, soit à l’étranger;
|
|
(b) that a person should be induced, by the belief that it is
genuine, to do or to refrain from doing anything, whether within Canada or
not.
|
b) d’engager quelqu’un, en lui faisant
croire que ce document est authentique, à faire ou à s’abstenir de faire
quelque chose, soit au Canada, soit à l’étranger.
|
|
(2) Making a false document includes
|
(2)
Faire un faux document comprend :
|
|
(a) altering a genuine document in any material part;
|
a) l’altération, en quelque partie
essentielle, d’un document authentique;
|
|
(b) making a material addition to a genuine document or adding to it
a false date, attestation, seal or other thing that is material; or
|
b) une addition essentielle à un document
authentique, ou l’addition, à un tel document, d’une fausse date,
attestation, sceau ou autre chose essentielle;
|
|
(c) making a material alteration in a genuine document by erasure,
obliteration, removal or in any other way.
|
c) une altération essentielle dans un
document authentique, soit par rature, oblitération ou enlèvement, soit
autrement.
|
Canadian Passport
Order, SI/81-86
|
2 In this Order,
|
2 Dans le présent décret,
|
|
passport means an official Canadian
document that shows the identity and nationality of a person for the purpose
of facilitating travel by that person outside Canada; (passeport)
|
passeport désigne un document officiel canadien qui établit l’identité et
la nationalité d’une personne afin de faciliter les déplacements de cette
personne hors du Canada; (passport)
|
Immigration Act, RSC 1985, c I-2
|
95.1(1) No person who claims to be a
Convention refugee and has notified an immigration officer of the claim
shall, pending disposition of the claim, be charged with or convicted of
|
95.1(1)
La personne qui revendique le statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention et
qui a avisé l'agent d'immigration en ce sens ne peut, tant que la question
n'est pas tranchée, être accusée ou déclarée coupable d'aucune des
infractions suivantes, si elle est arrivée directement au Canada du pays
qu'elle a quitté ou hors duquel elle est demeurée de crainte d'être
persécutée :
|
|
(a) an offence under paragraph 94(1)(a),
(b), (k) or (l),
|
a)
l'infraction visée aux alinéas 94(1)a), b), k) ou l);
|
|
(b) an offence under paragraph 94(1)(f),
(g) or (h) in relation to an examination of that person under
this Act,
|
b)
l'infraction visée aux alinéas 94(1)f), g) ou h) et
relative à l'interrogatoire dont elle a fait l'objet dans le cadre de la
présente loi;
|
|
(c) an offence under section 95 or 98
in relation to the coming into Canada of that person or an examination of
that person under this Act, or
|
c)
l'infraction visée à l'article 95 ou 98 et relative à son arrivée au Canada
ou à l'interrogatoire dont elle a fait l'objet dans le cadre de la présente
loi;
|
|
(d) an offence under section 57,
paragraph 340(c) or any of sections 354, 366, 368, 374 or 403 of the
Criminal Code in relation to the coming into Canada of the person,
if that person came to Canada directly from the country that the
person left, or outside of which the person remains, by reason of fear of
persecution.
|
d) l'infraction visée à l'article 57, à
l'alinéa 340c) ou aux articles 354, 366, 368, 374 ou 403 du Code
criminel et relative à son arrivée au Canada.
|
III.
Background
[4]
Golam Mustafa [the Principal Claimant] (actually
named Mohammed Golam Kibria), Taslima Begum [the Female Claimant] (wife of the
Principal Claimant), both citizens of Bangladesh, and their son Muhtasim
Mustafa Abid [the Minor Claimant], citizen of the United States, claim refugee
protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].
[5]
The Principal Claimant based his claim on
political involvement contrary to the ruling party.
[6]
The Immigration and Refugee Board [Board] found
that the Principal Claimant took steps to secure a false identity, used
fraudulent means to obtain a visa for the U.S. and maintained this false
identity for 12 years until discovered by the U.S. authorities. He purported to
be the son of his brother in a successful effort to avoid lengthy wait times
for a visa.
[7]
The Principal Claimant entered the U.S. on
August 8, 1999, as a landed immigrant on the basis of being a dependent of his “father” – who was actually his brother.
The
Principal Claimant married the Female Claimant by telephone in Bangladesh. They
subsequently had a U.S. born son.
[8]
The Principal Claimant had several interactions
with the FBI who were determining whether he was connected with an extreme
Islamic group in the U.S.
[9]
The Principal Claimant also became aware, after applying
for citizenship, that his DNA would be tested to confirm his identity. The
Principal Claimant and Female Claimant, at some point during dealings with the
FBI, claimed they felt unsafe in the U.S. and came to Canada.
Importantly,
they used the passports at issue for purposes of entering Canada.
[10]
On the original PIF the Principal Claimant
claimed he was Golam Mustafa, later changed to Mustafa Mohammed Kibria and then
to Mohammed Golam Kibria. His date of birth and relationships changed. He added
a different father and mother, and two brothers and two sisters. He changed two
previously-listed sisters to nieces.
[11]
Not surprisingly, he filed a completely new
narrative which claimed a risk because of his political involvement. He also
disclosed his “true” identity.
[12]
Equally not surprisingly, the RPD generally found
the Principal Claimant not to be a trustworthy or credible witness. The RPD
found that neither the Principal Claimant nor the Female Claimant had a
well-founded fear of persecution or would be subjected personally to a risk of
death or harm if they returned to Bangladesh.
In
this regard, the RPD noted two instances of refoulement.
[13]
The Board did not accept the explanation that
they were unaware of the immigration process, nor did the Board accept their
reliance on the fact that they did not have counsel when preparing their PIF.
[14]
The determinative issue was credibility. The “exclusion” finding was an alternative finding. The
initial court hearing was adjourned to allow the parties time to make submissions
in respect of the recent decision in Febles v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 431 [Febles].
IV.
Analysis
[15]
The standard of review on the credibility issue
is reasonableness with considerable deference owed to the advantageous position
of the trier of fact (Aguebor v (Canada) Minister of Employment and
Immigration (FCA), [1993] FCJ No 732, 42 ACWS (3d) 886).
The
standard of review regarding the exclusion finding is more nuanced and will be
discussed later.
A.
Credibility
[16]
I cannot find anything unreasonable in the RPD’s
credibility finding. The Principal Claimant’s ever changing story – without any
real justification for his lies – is a sufficient basis for the finding that he
cannot be trusted. There is no credible documentary evidence ignored by the RPD
that would call this general finding into doubt.
The
Principal Claimant’s efforts to avoid detection, including failing to show up
for a DNA test, undermines the suggestion that he had a real basis for fear. If
so, he would not have gone to such lengths to avoid the truth.
[17]
The Applicants argued that the RPD should have
commented on key facts in the objective evidence. While the Board’s decision
could have been more fulsome, it is difficult to see how more fulsome reasons
would have assisted the Applicants.
[18]
The Board’s finding is consistent with the
record – it was clear, intelligible and reasonably open to it to make.
On
this ground, the judicial review will be denied.
B.
Exclusion
[19]
As credibility is determinative, the Court’s comments
on exclusion are obiter. It is usually best to refrain from obiter
but in this case I part from that wisdom in order to avoid any suggestion later
that this Court accepted or confirmed the Board’s finding and most particularly
its conclusion on the criminal offence said to have been committed.
[20]
As noted earlier, the Applicants were excluded
pursuant to Article 1F(b) of the Convention:
Article 1F. The
provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to
whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
…
(b) he has committed a serious
non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to
that country as a refugee;
[21]
In the present case, the Principal Claimant was
not convicted of a serious non-political crime. Accordingly, the test is whether
there is “serious reason for considering” that
he committed such a crime.
[22]
The crime that forms the basis of the allegation
is s 57(1)(b) – knowing use, in or out of Canada, of a forged passport.
The crime is an indictable offence punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment.
[23]
The factual basis is the Principal Claimant’s
admission that he obtained his Bangladesh passport fraudulently by obtaining a
false date of birth document with a new birthday and new name. The document said
to be forged is the passport (not the date of birth document). The passport as
issued was not altered nor did he make the passport.
[24]
Considering the standard of review, the Board’s
analysis of the facts and the application of those facts must be reasonable (Uppal
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 338, 289 FTR
196; Kathirgamathamby v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2013 FC 811, 437 FTR 185).
[25]
However, any rebuttable presumption that the
interpretation of law is also reasonableness (Alberta (Information and
Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011 SCC 61, [2011]
3 SCR 654) is readily rebutted. The interpretation of Article 1F(b) has been
held to be correctness (Febles, particularly at the Court of Appeal).
Further, the central issue is whether the offending act was the Principal Claimant’s
use of a forged document or the making of a false statement to secure his
Bangladeshi passport (s 57(2) of the Criminal Code). This is a
consideration well beyond the Board’s area of expertise and is of general
public importance. It must be correctly determined.
[26]
The importance of the distinction between using
a forged document (s 57(1)(b)) and the making of a false statement to
procure a passport (s 57(2)) is the maximum sentence of 14 years versus two
years, respectively.
[27]
That difference in sentencing is one of the
factors to be examined in considering whether the non-political crime is “serious” such that the Principal Claimant can be
excluded under the Convention.
[28]
In Febles, the Supreme Court of Canada
confirmed the approaches in Chan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [2000] FCJ No 1180, [2000] 4 FC 390, and Jayasekara v
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FCA 404, [2009] 4 FCR 164. This
approach dictates that the 10-year rule (a crime punishable by imprisonment for
10 or more years is presumed to be a serious offence) is a useful guideline to
which other contextual factors – the actual sentencing experience, for example
– are to be added for consideration.
[29]
In my view, the Board erred in incorrectly
interpreting s 57(1) of the Criminal Code to include documents which
were not forged (as defined in the Criminal Code). From that error, the
Board concludes there are serious reasons for considering that a serious
offence has occurred outside Canada and the Principal Claimant is excluded by
Article 1F(b).
[30]
It is important to note that there was not
sufficiently developed argument on the applicability of sections 122 and 123 of
IRPA. Section 133 operates as a bar to the application of s 122 in the context
of a refugee claim.
The
purpose of Article 1F(b) is to capture those who attempt to enter Canada having
potentially committed a serious non political crime outside Canada. In this
case, the crime (if committed in Canada) would be the making of a false
statement in Bangladesh to secure a passport there. Such a crime is subject to
a maximum two-year sentence of imprisonment.
[31]
Despite this error in the Board’s analysis and
its mechanical consideration of the 10-year rule – which would result in an
invalid exclusion finding – the Board’s decision stands because of the
reasonable conclusion as to credibility.
V.
Conclusion
[32]
For these reasons, this judicial review will be
dismissed. There is no question for certification.
Email this Content