Date: 19990421
Docket: IMM-2048-98
BETWEEN:
NODINE IZANA NZUZI
EDOUARD SANGWA MASAKA
CHRISTELLE SANGWA
NODINE SANGWA
Applicants
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU, J.
[1] The applicants filed an application for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Convention Refugee Determination Division, dated March 11, 1998, holding that the applicants are not Convention refugees. The applicants seek an order setting aside the decision of the Board and remitting the matter back for reconsideration.
[2] The applicant, Nodine Azine Nexus and her three children are citizens of Congo. They claimed refugee status based on perceived political opinions and membership of a particular social group, her husband's family.
[3] She alleged that on November 2, 1996 her husband was accused of assisting opposing factions and was arrested by Mobutu's military men. He was released on December 3, 1996. On April 14, 1997, the applicant's husband was arrested for a second time and released using bribes. Following this incident, the applicant and her family decided to flee the country. She and three of her children fled to Canada using borrowed passports. Her husband and their three other children fled towards neighbouring African countries.
[4] It should be noted that when she left her country, Mobutu was in charge; since her departure from Kinshasa, her place of residence is now occupied by the Kabila forces.
[5] On December 17, 1997, the applicant attended a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board (Refugee Division).
[6] On March 11, 1998, the Board dismissed their application on the basis that there was no objective fear of persecution. The Board found that the documentary evidence did not corroborate the applicant's testimony that citizens residing in Kinshasa, namely, her children and her, and specifically her husband because he has the facial traits of a Tutsi, would be persecuted under Kabila regime.
[7] The applicant submits that the Board erred in failing to consider her claim that she and her children would be perceived as Hutus and persecuted because of her husband's mixed ethnic background, Rwandan-Zairian, if returned to Congo.
[8] The applicant submits that the Board erred in its overall assessment of the evidence; that it misconstrued documents and failed to provide reasons for rejecting the sworn testimony of the applicant which is presumed true.
[9] In her Further memorandum of Argument, the applicant submits that the Board committed a mixed error of law and facts in assessing whether the applicant had an internal flight alternative. In my view, this issue is without merit and was not pursued in argument before this Court.
[10] The respondent submits that the Board did not misapprehend the applicant's claim as she never asserted that her husband would be seen as a Hutu but primarily because he was born in the Kivu area, site of the Kabila atrocities. In her testimony, the applicant testified that her husband had the "morphologie des peuples Rwandais" and equated Rwandais and Tutsis. It is argued that the applicant's evidence was to the effect that she and her children would be persecuted because her husband is from the Kivu region and Kabila authorities persecute persons from that region because they are witnesses to the massacres of Hutus.
[11] The respondent further submits that, based on the evidence, it was open to the Board to conclude that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Congo as it was implausible that the Kabila regime, who supported the Tutsi government in Rwanda, would persecute someone like the applicant's husband because of his Rwandan/Tutsi appearance.
[12] The Board is entitled to rely on documentary evidence in preference to that of the claimant; the Board is under no obligation to refer to all items in the documentary evidence it relied upon in arriving to its conclusion.
[13] There are two issues before this Court: 1) Did the Board err in law by failing to consider the applicant's claim that she and her children would be perceived as Hutus and persecuted because of her husband's particular ethnic background if returned to Congo; and 2) Did the Board err in assessing the documentary evidence and in failing to provide clear reasons for preferring or rejecting evidence?
[14] The written application does not assist the Court. However, the transcript from the hearing at pages 221-222 of the Court Record is enlightening:
| |
WATT Et votre peur pour votre Mari et vos enfants, c'était à cause du fait qu'ils sont d'origine Tutsi? |
|
| |
DEMANDERESSE C'est entre les deux maintenant. Mon Mari n'est pas un Tutsi pour le moment. Quand tu regardes son identitié c'est quelqu'un du Kivu. Quand nous allons chez les Bantus qui sont des Zaïrois, on nous pourchasse, nous traite de Rwandais. On nous dit, voilà, nous avons des ressources Rwandaises. |
|
| |
Quand nous allons maintenant chez les Rwandais qui sont au pouvoir, qui sont des Tutsis aujourd'hui, on nous reconnait pas comme des Tutsis, on dit que nous sommes des Bantus, nous sommes des gens du Kivu. Nous sommes nul part maintenant. |
|
| |
WATT Vous avez indiqué dans votre fiche de renseignement que votre mari avait la morphologie Rwandaise. |
|
| |
WATT Qu'est-ce que çà veut dire? |
|
| |
DEMANDERESSE Les Rwandais -- les Tutsis, ils ont des traits différents des Bantus. Ils proviennent du peuple Nulotique (ph). Il y a une trèes grande différence. Le Tutsi c'est la personne qui est grande de taille. Ils ont le nez pointu, ils ont le visage comme ça oval. Ils ont des cheveux qui commencent un peu là en arrière et les doigts sont très fins. |
|
| |
Par contre, l'homme Bantu, il n'est pas très grand de taille, il est de taille moyenne. Le nez n'est pas pointu, il est aplati et gros et puis il n'est pas très grand de taille. C'est l'homme qui d'habitude il est fort. |
|
| |
WATT Alors il serait évident qu'il est Rwandais -- qu'il est Tutsi? |
|
| |
WATT Il serait évident que votre mari est Tutsi, non? |
|
| |
DEMANDERESSE C'est sa mère. Son père est Kivutien, il est quelqu'un du Kivu. Il a pris l'identité de son père. Sa mère aussi s'est intégrée dans cette région où il a pris l'identité de cette région également. |
|
| |
WATT Et à votre opinion, basé sur l'information donnée des autres, votre mari et vos enfants sont en danger de qui au Kivu? Des Tutsis Rwandais ou de qui? |
|
| |
DEMANDERESSE Non, du Kivu. Pas les Tutsi Rwandais. |
|
| |
DEMANDERESSE Oui. Les Tutsis reconnaissent les leur seulement quand on a le sang 100 pour-cent Tutsi. Alors là on est considéré Tutsi. quand on est moitié Tutsi, les Tutsis ne reconnaissent pas le mélange de les Bantus et des Tutsis. Parce qu'on les considère comme moitié. Donc ils ne sont pas totalement 100 pour-cent Tutsi. |
|
| |
Donc mon Mari a pris l'identité de son père, également mes enfants. |
|
[15] It is clear from the foregoing excerpt that the applicant did not claim or state that her husband had the physical traits or attributes of Hutus. Neither did she specifically state that he looked like a Tutsi. However, in the excerpt, the applicant's testimony seems to indicate that her husband's ethnic background as a Rwandan-Zairian has the physical traits of a Tutsi.
[16] As supported by the Board's reasons, the applicant's allegation that "son Mari porte la morphologie Rwandaise et aurait été considéré "Hutu" par les forces de Kabila" was properly weighed and the Board made a finding of fact that the applicant's husband had the appearance of a Tutsi. This determination supported by the evidence is not unreasonable. Thus, it was open to the Board to conclude that it was implausible that the Kabila regime would persecute someone with a Rwandan/Tutsi appearance.
[17] Despite the applicant's submissions that the Board misapprehended her claim, I am unable to find that it committed a reviewable error of law. The contention that the Board misapprehended the claim is unsubstantiated by the evidence. In fact, the transcript reveals to the contrary; the applicant did not state in her testimony that her husband had the appearance of a Hutu.
[18] The applicant has submitted that her sworn testimony that her family would be at risk should be presumed true and, as a result, that the Board erred in failing to provide clear reasons for rejecting it. I am satisfied that it was open to the Board to conclude that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. There is no general obligation on the Board to point out specifically any and all items of documentary evidence on which it might rely or which it might reject.
[19] No where in the transcript, contrary to the submissions, is there evidence to support the claim that the husband could be persecuted because of his resemblance to that of a Hutu from the Kivu region.
[20] I have come to the conclusion that the Board's finding, that there could be no fear of persecution objectively well-founded, is reasonable and should not be interfered with.
[21] Counsel both agreed that there is no serious question.
[22] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
April 21, 1999
Email this Content