Docket: IMM-399-17
Citation:
2017 FC 712
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, July 21, 2017
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Roussel
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
YOLLANDE MPASI
MOKONZI
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The applicant, Yollande Mpasi Mokonzi, is
seeking the judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD],
dated January 18, 2017, dismissing the appeal and confirming the decision of
the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] under subsection 111(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.
[2]
The applicant is a citizen of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo [DRC]. She entered Canada on September 13, 2015, and
claimed refugee protection the next day.
[3]
She claims that she was persecuted because of
her activities as a finance manager with Assistance aux personnes vulnérables
et enfants du Congo [APVEC], a non-governmental organization. She alleges that
during protests aimed at preventing the enactment of a federal statute in
January 2015, several people were killed by the police. APVEC launched an
investigation to determine the exact number of victims. The applicant was then
targeted by the police. In April 2015, a mass grave was discovered. The
government stated that the bodies were of unidentified premature babies. APVEC investigated
to verify the veracity of that claim. On April 6, 2015, men appeared at
the applicant’s house. Because she was not there, they beat her husband and
brother. One week later, her husband and brother were beaten again when seven
men, two of whom were wearing military uniforms, showed up at the applicant’s
house. On September 12, 2015, with the assistance of the chairperson of APVEC, the
applicant left the DRC for Canada with a Canadian visa.
[4]
On January 5, 2016, the RPD rejected the refugee
protection claim on the ground that the applicant was not credible. First, it
noted that the applicant was unable to describe the content of the reports that
she had apparently prepared during the investigations carried out by APVEC and
for which she was at risk of persecution. Furthermore, it found that the
applicant had failed to provide a proper explanation of the contradictions regarding
her marital status. While she stated in the generic IMM-0008 application form,
dated September 14, 2015, that she separated from her husband on February 1,
2014, she indicated in her narrative in support of her Basis of Claim Form,
dated September 24, 2015, that her [translation]
“husband” had been threatened and beaten on
April 6, 2015, and she stated in her visa application, dated May 12, 2015, that
she has never been married or been in a common law relationship. Lastly, the
RPD deemed not credible the threat that the DRC authorities represent for the
applicant because she stated that she could be persecuted for her work for APVEC
even though that same organization successfully obtained an authentic passport
for her, in her name, and enabled her to circumvent security checks.
[5]
On January 18, 2017, the RAD dismissed the
appeal. It found, after conducting an independent assessment of the record and
hearing the applicant’s testimony before the RPD, that the RPD had not erred in
its assessment of the applicant’s credibility.
[6]
In its decision, the RAD noted that the applicant
hesitated when she was asked to specify the content of the reports that she
apparently prepared and that she did not answer a direct question on the
subject. The same thing happened when she was asked to specify the approach
used in the investigation. Like the RPD, the RAD was of the opinion that the
applicant’s inability to describe the contents of the reports and the approach
used in the investigation undermine her credibility.
[7]
The RAD then examined the issue of the
applicant’s marital status. The applicant claims, in particular, that she
cannot be held responsible for certain statements in her visa application
because it was the chairperson of APVEC that took steps to obtain the visa. The
RAD rejected that argument, pointing out that the applicant had signed the
forms. The RAD also added that if the applicant was single, as indicated in her
visa application, it is hard to see how her husband could have been beaten
twice by men who were looking for her.
[8]
Lastly, the RAD found that the RPD did not err
by finding that it is not credible that APVEC officials had managed to obtain a
passport for her and had allowed her to circumvent security checks. The RAD
found that if it was true that the authorities wanted to go after the
applicant, those same authorities would have not allowed APVEC officials to
obtain a passport for her or have allowed the applicant to leave the country.
[9]
The applicant argues that it was unreasonable
for the RPD and the RAD to doubt her credibility because she was unable to
describe the approach used in the investigation or the contents of reports that
she prepared in her role at APVEC. She claims that she provided detailed,
spontaneous and credible testimony on her other activities with the
organization and that her testimony should have been assessed as a whole.
Concerning her marital status, she reiterates that her visa application was
completed by the chairperson of APVEC and adds that it is common to find false
information in visa applications. This point cannot be determinative. Lastly,
she alleges that she does not know what steps APVEC took to obtain her passport
or to help her leave the country. The applicant states that she testified
before the RPD that the ministry that issues passports had not been the one
that had caused her problems. She is of the opinion that the RAD speculated when
it found that it is not credible that APVEC could have obtained a passport for
her and successfully helped her leave the country.
[10]
The Court cannot agree with the applicant’s arguments.
[11]
The standard of review that applies to the RAD’s
decision is reasonableness (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v
Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 at para 35). It applies to the RAD’s credibility findings
and its assessment of the evidence (Chen v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2017 FC 539 at para 19).
[12]
Where the reasonableness standard applies, the
role of the Court is to determine whether the decision falls within “a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are
defensible in respect of the facts and law”. As long as “the process and the outcome fit comfortably with the
principles of justification, transparency and intelligibility”, it is
not open to this Court to substitute an outcome it prefers (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9 at para 47 [Dunsmuir]; Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 59 [Khosa]).
[13]
The Court finds that the RAD’s decision was
reasonable in this case. The RAD applied the appropriate standard and carried
out an independent assessment of all of the evidence in the record. It also conducted
its own analysis of the applicant’s credibility, not limiting itself to the
RPD’s negative credibility findings, which are generally entitled to a degree
of deference. It listened to the recording of the hearing before the RPD and relied
on its own assessment of the applicant’s testimony and the evidence in the
record to agree with the RPD’s finding that the applicant is not credible. Its
finding is supported by the evidence in the record and its decision contains
sufficient reasons.
[14]
While the applicant does not agree with the
findings of the RAD or the RPD, it is not open to this Court to reassess and
weigh the evidence to make a finding favourable to the applicant (Khosa
at para 59).
[15]
In conclusion, the Court is of the opinion that the
RAD’s decision falls within “a range of possible,
acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law”
and that it is justified in a manner that meets the criteria of transparency
and intelligibility within the decision‑making process (Dunsmuir at
para 47).
[16]
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
No question of general importance has been submitted for certification and the
Court is of the opinion that none is raised in this matter.
Email this Content