Date: 20010316
Docket: IMM-1760-00
Ottawa, Ontario, March 16, 2001
Before: Pinard J.
Between:
BINTOU KEITA
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision by the Refugee Division on February 21, 2000 that the applicant is not a Convention refugee is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20010316
Docket: IMM-1760-00
Neutral reference: 2001 FCT 187
Between:
BINTOU KEITA
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] The application for judicial review is from a decision by the Refugee Division ("the RD") on February 21, 2000 that the applicant, a national of Guinea, is not a Convention refugee as defined in s. 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The subject decision is based on the applicant's failure to establish her identity. The tribunal accepted the truth of her excision but found that she was unable to satisfactorily establish either her identity or nationality. The applicant filed an extract from a birth certificate and a national identity card, exhibits which were examined by experts. The results indicated that the documents were of doubtful authenticity, and there were no further conclusions concerning their authenticity. As the applicant was unable [TRANSLATION] "to provide satisfactory clarification", the RD dismissed her application.
[3] A person claiming refugee status has a fundamental duty to establish her identity on a balance of probabilities before the RD (see Yip v. M.E.I. (1993), 70 F.T.R. 175, at para. [7]).
[4] In Adar v. M.C.I. (1997), 132 F.T.R. 35, Cullen J. indicated the standard of review applicable to the assessment of documentary evidence by the RD, such as identity documents, in para. [15]:
In Sivasamboo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] 1 F.C. 741; 87 F.T.R. 46 (T.D.), Mr. Justice Richard found that the CRDD is an expert tribunal. Thus, the standard of review of the CRDD on findings of fact is patent unreasonableness (as agreed with by this court in De Connick et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 110 F.T.R. 207 (T.D.); Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 102 F.T.R. 203 (T.D.); Acosta v. Canada, IMM-805-95 (September 28, 1995)). In terms of determining the validity of passports and other identity documents, this standard is underscored. The CRDD has all of the expert evidence before it as well as the documents themselves. It assesses the credibility of witness's [sic] testimony and weighs it accordingly. It is not necessary for the tribunal to address each and every document before it. However, the tribunal must, nevertheless, justify its conclusions with appropriate reference to the evidence before it.
[5] In the case at bar, the RD had the following two documents before it:
P-1: An extract from a birth certificate, No. 0023628;
P-2: A national identity card, No. 3199805, including a photograph.
[6] The expert reports obtained by the RD include the following observations and conclusions:
[TRANSLATION]
The following document was submitted to us for our expert opinion . . . It is an extract from a Guinea birth certificate No. 0023628, issued in the name of KEITA Bintou, hereinafter referred to as Exhibit E-99333.
. . . . .
Microscopic observations: we found that the pagination and generic text were the result of electrostatic reproduction (photocopying); characteristic generally associated with forgery. Biographical data added in blue ink.
Declaration date of February 4, 1980 indicated a document which was 19 years old: yellowing of the paper should have been apparent, whereas the paper was immaculately white: characteristic generally associated with forgery.
Absence of stippling at various points indicated that there may have been erasure of information from original document:
. . . . .
CONCLUSIONS:
In our opinion, Exhibit E-99333 is of doubtful authenticity.
The following document was submitted to us for our expert opinion . . . It is a national identity card from the Republic of Guinea having No. 3199805, issued to KEITA Bintou, hereinafter referred to as Exhibit E-99334.
. . . . .
Microscopic observations: the tax stamp on the back of Exhibit E-99334 was an electrostatic reproduction (photocopy) from which the border had been cut by hand to simulate the serration of a stamp: characteristic generally associated with forgery.
We noted that the moist seal on the front and back had features that were handmade: letters were deformed and unequal to each other.
We also noted that the laminating came unstuck easily as well as the support and the photo being accessible.
. . . . .
CONCLUSIONS:
In our opinion Exhibit E-99334 is probably authentic but certain points mentioned in our observations make the document of very doubtful authenticity.
[7] Although I find the conclusion that Exhibit P-2 is "probably authentic" but "very apocryphal" to be somewhat paradoxical, the fact remains that these two documents exhibited several characteristics associated with forgery. In view of this evidence, it was clearly not patently unreasonable for the tribunal to conclude as it did.
[8] In Mohanarajan v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (November 6, 2000), IMM-5482-99, Simpson J. of this Court refused to allow judicial review in a similar situation for the following reasons:
[32] Given all the problems which were identified in connection with the documents, it is my view that the Board's finding was open to it. The Board is entitled, given its expertise, to reach conclusions about the reliability of a document even though the RCMP had not determined whether it was or was not authentic.
[9] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 16, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: IMM-1760-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Bintou Keita
- and -
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 8, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Pinard J.
DATED: March 16, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Luc R. Desmarais FOR THE APPLICANT
Caroline Doyon FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Luc R. Desmarais FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content