Docket: IMM-2269-16
Citation:
2017 FC 32
Toronto, Ontario, January 11, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ALEKSI
BRATCHULI
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Aleksi Bratchuli [the Applicant], has applied
for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the
Immigration and Refugee Board [the RPD] dated May 5, 2016 [the Decision],
rejecting the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection and concluding that the
claim was manifestly unfounded.
[2]
The Applicant states that he was born in an area
of Georgia close to the border with South Ossetia and that he speaks Georgian
with an Ossetian accent.
[3]
The Applicant’s grandparents lived in South
Ossetia and his father travelled there frequently to visit them. People in his
village noticed these trips and thought his father was supporting South Ossetia
against Georgia. The Applicant says that on December 12, 2006, his father
became involved in a fight with the local police chief [Patashuri], another
police officer [Zurabashvili] and other Georgian men. The Applicant says that
his father died that day due to his injuries. When the Applicant’s brother
complained to the Office of the Prosecutor, both the Applicant and his brother
were threatened by policemen.
[4]
The Applicant also says that on July 18, 2014,
there was another fight which involved Patashuri and Zurabashvili, and that his
brother died in hospital after that assault.
[5]
The Applicant then complained to the Office of
the Prosecutor and the Office of the Ombudsman. However, in October 2014, he
received a call from Zurabashvili informing him that if he did not withdraw his
complaints, he would be the next one to die. The Applicant states that on
December 21, 2014, Patashuri and Zurabashvili and four other men attacked him
in front of his house in Tbilisi, and beat him until he was unconscious. Neighbours
heard the fight. In the hospital, he gave the police the names of the people
who beat him and the police promised to investigate.
[6]
After his release from the hospital, the
Applicant stayed with a friend for safety, but on April 15, 2015, Patashuri and
Zurabashvili and two other men appeared at the friend’s house and beat him
again. He awoke in the hospital and was interviewed by the police. He says that
in May 2015, he went to the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Tbilisi for help.
He was told that an investigation was in progress, but the complaint was later closed.
The Applicant and his wife decided that he should leave Georgia. He met with a
smuggler in Turkey and arrived in Vancouver on September 22, 2015.
[7]
The record shows that the Applicant was
interviewed several times by immigration officers when he entered Canada [the
POE Interviews]. He was provided with a Georgian interpreter for all of his
interviews. He was also given an opportunity to write, in his own language, the
reasons for his travel to Canada [the Statement].
I.
The RPD Decision
[8]
The RPD found that the Applicant had provided
three fraudulent documents: his brother’s death certificate, a photograph of his
brother’s tombstone, and a letter from the Georgian Ombudsman.
[9]
The Respondent attempted to verify the brother’s
death certificate by inputting its serial number into a Georgian Government
website. This process showed that the serial number matched the father’s and
not the brother’s death certificate. The Applicant explained that this was an
error on the part of the Georgian Government, but provided no further evidence
to address this issue despite being aware of the problem several months before
the hearing. In addition, the RPD found that the father’s and brother’s death
certificates were very different in appearance. The brother’s death certificate
did not contain a barcode like the father’s, and they did not share the same
government seal despite being issued by the same government agency within a
short time of each other.
[10]
The RPD also found that a photograph of the
brother’s tombstone in Georgia had been altered, as the number “4” in the date of death was not consistent with the
numerical style of the other number on his own tombstone, or the “4” on his father’s tombstone. The RPD concluded that
the photograph had been altered in an effort to deceive the panel into
believing that the year of death was 2014.
[11]
The Applicant also provided a letter from the
Ombudsman of Georgia to support the allegation that he had been actively been
seeking state protection in Georgia. The letter states that a complaint was
received from the Applicant on June 5, 2015. However, in his Basis of Claim [BOC]
form, the Applicant said that he pursued an investigation with the Ombudsman in
2014. Further, in his Statement, he wrote that he filed the complaint on
December 12, 2006.
[12]
He was unable to explain these inconsistencies.
[13]
During his POE Interviews and in his Statement,
the Applicant claimed his brother was killed in 2000, and that his father was
killed in 2006. However, in his BOC form, he stated that his brother was killed
in 2014 and his father was killed in 2006. The Applicant blamed this
contradiction on the interpreter, but since the Applicant had written the
Statement in his own hand and in his own language, the RPD did not accept this
explanation.
[14]
The Applicant also stated in the POE Interviews
that his brother was pushed into the water and drowned by party-goers. However,
in his BOC form, he said that his brother was beaten to death by police
officers.
[15]
When asked in the POE Interviews why he could
not return to Georgia, the Applicant stated that he feared random people on the
street and explained that he would get into fights; yet in his BOC form, he
says he fears the Georgian police and provides the names Patashuri and
Zurabashvili. The Applicant explained that he did not want to tell the CBSA
officers about the names of the police in Georgia as he was concerned that that
information would get back to Georgia. The RPD did not accept this explanation,
saying that he should at least have told the border officials that he feared
police generally when this was a central element of his claim.
[16]
The RPD accepted that the Applicant might suffer
from PTSD, Post-Concussion Syndrome, and a major depressive disorder as set out
in the medical opinion of the psychiatrist. However, the RPD doubted that he
suffered from those conditions because of the two beatings he described in his
BOC form.
II.
The Issues
A.
Did the RPD fail to assess the impact of the
Applicant’s medical condition on his ability to provide evidence?
B.
Did the RPD fail to appoint a designated
representative, when such an appointment was clearly required?
C.
Did the RPD err when determining that the number
“4” on the photo of the brother’s tombstone had
been altered?
III.
Discussion and Conclusions
A.
Did the RPD fail to assess the impact of the
Applicant’s medical condition on his ability to provide evidence?
[17]
Two medical opinions were before the RPD. One was
prepared by a psychiatrist and the other by a general practitioner. The former
concluded that the Applicant’s memory and ability to concentrate are impaired,
and that he would have trouble organizing his thoughts and remembering exact
dates and timelines. The latter found, among other things, that he has
difficulty concentrating and recalling numbers, dates and recent events. The RPD
accepted these findings, but did not find that his symptoms were caused by beatings
by the police. In my view, this conclusion was reasonable.
B.
Did the RPD fail to appoint a designated
representative, when such an appointment was clearly required?
[18]
The Applicant submits that only a severe
breakdown can explain the fact that he provided Canadian authorities with such inconsistent
versions of events and counsel for the Applicant says that this is the only
rational explanation for his divergent stories and that his previous counsel
and the RPD should have recognized that fact.
[19]
The Applicant says that a designated
representative should have been appointed for him at the RPD hearing.
[20]
However, I have not been persuaded by this
submission because there is no evidence from his counsel or from the RPD or
from the two medical practitioners who examined him to suggest that the
Applicant had lost his grip on reality.
C.
Did the RPD err when determining that the number
“4” on the photo of the brother’s tombstone had been altered?
[21]
I am not able to decide whether the RPD’s conclusion
about the photograph is reasonable. However, even if it was unreasonable, it
would be an immaterial error. The other inconsistent evidence provides a sufficient
basis for concluding that the Decision is reasonable.
IV.
Certification
[22]
No question was posed for certification for
appeal.
Email this Content