Date: 20100924
Docket: IMM-932-10
Citation: 2010 FC 961
Ottawa,
Ontario,
September 24, 2010
PRESENT:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
henrietta mbone
ntone sona
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review, pursuant to section 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, of a decision of the Refugee
Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board that found that the
applicant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
[2]
The
applicant is a citizen of Cameroon and claims protection on the basis of political opinion because
she was a member of the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC), an
anglophone organization, and the Human Rights Defence Group (HRDG), which she says
made her a target for the current governing party, the Cameroon People’s
Democratic Movement (CPDM). The Board rejected her application principally on
grounds of credibility. It found that “there is insufficient credible and
trustworthy evidence with respect to pivotal areas of the claimant’s testimony
and documents, notably, whether the claimant established an affiliation as a
member of the SCNC.”
[3]
I do
not accept the submission of the applicant that the Board erred in making a
“negative credibility finding on a faulty premise and thereby without regard
for the material actually before it,” that it made “perverse findings of fact
regarding apparent inconsistencies and implausibilities,” or that “there was a
reasonable apprehension that the panel was biased and therefore deprived the
claimant of her right to a hearing before an impartial tribunal.”
[4]
The Board’s
conclusion on credibility was well supported by its review of the evidence
before it. The Board considered a number of points which led it to conclude
that the applicant had failed to establish an affiliation with the SCNC or the
HRDG, including the following:
(1) The applicant could not
produce an HRDG membership card and provided no alternative documentation or
adequate explanation why she could not so do;
(2) The applicant could not
produce an original copy of her SCNC card, and the copy she provided spelled
“democracy” as “democraty”; this despite the organization being an
English-language group and despite the Board Member’s past experience with SCNC
membership cards which contained no such spelling errors;
(3) The applicant could not
spell “democracy”; she spelled it “democrace”;
(4) The applicant stated
that the SCNC was founded in 1961 whereas it was founded in the early 1990s;
(5) The applicant did not
have anything beyond general knowledge of the SCNC;
(6) The applicant stated in
her Personal Information Form (PIF) that her uncle was the Vice-Chairman of the
Limbe branch of the SCNC, whereas in her oral evidence she stated that he was
President of his community; and
(7) The applicant did not
state in her PIF nor was it set out in the port-of-entry notes that she was a
member of the SCNC.
[5]
The Board also concluded
that the applicant had failed to establish that she was detained and sought by
police, as she had alleged, based on the following inconsistencies in her
evidence:
(1)
The applicant stated
on her PIF that she was beaten during her first arrest, but during the oral
hearing she said “nothing” happened to her on that occasion;
(2)
The applicant did not
provide any media documents covering the protest where she said she was
arrested;
(3)
The applicant stated
in her PIF that she escaped detention while cutting grass, whereas in her oral
evidence she stated she escaped while mopping an office;
(4)
The applicant stated
in her PIF that a guard’s brother picked her up after she escaped, whereas in
her oral evidence she stated it was a guard’s distant relative;
(5)
The medical report
from Cameroon provided by the applicant was
inconsistent with her PIF; and
(6)
The medical report
from Canada provided by the applicant was
inconsistent with her PIF.
[6]
The applicant submits
that the Board erred in failing to properly appreciate her psychological
assessment – she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder – which, she
submits explains why her version of events was not consistent. I accept the
respondent’s submission that the medical opinions she provided fail to disclose
that her condition would result in her evidence being confused and
contradictory. Further, as the respondent points out, the Canadian medical
opinion recites a version of events leading to her alleged condition that
differs from what she outlined at the hearing and to immigration authorities.
[7]
Accordingly, I find
that the Board did not err in making its negative credibility findings, it used
no faulty premise, and its determination was clearly made on the material
before it as well as the applicant’s oral testimony.
[8]
I also do not accept
the applicant’s submission that the Board erred in rejecting the documentation
she presented solely because of the spelling mistake, or that the Board failed
to consider the socio-economic and political realities of Cameroon –
specifically that the Board expected that documents produced in Cameroon would
comply with “Western standards of perfection.” It was not an error for the Board to reject
the SCNC membership card presented by the applicant because of the spelling
mistake. It was also in a different format. As the Board noted in its
reasons, it has experience with this very type of membership card and was in a
position to identify the card presented by the applicant as not being genuine.
[9]
Contrary to the
applicant’s submissions, there was a reason not to believe her testimony,
namely, the many inconsistencies in her evidence, the problems with the
documentation, and the applicant’s lack of knowledge regarding the group of
which she claimed to be a part.
[10]
I further find that there
is no basis for the applicant’s submission that the Board was either ignorant
about Cameroon or expected the applicant to conform to
a “usual” pattern. The Board Member specifically stated that she had
experience adjudicating claims regarding the SCNC. The Board did not compare
the applicant to any “pattern”, but rather came to its conclusion based on its
reasonable determination that the applicant was not credible.
[11]
The applicant’s
testimony was rejected, and her documentation determined to be unreliable. In
such circumstances, an applicant fails to establish a link to persecution. I
agree with Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s conclusion in this regard in Seevaratnam v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 167 F.T.R. 130 (T.D.), at para. 8:
Clearly,
where the only evidence linking the claimant to the persecution emanates from
his or her testimony, rejecting the testimony means there is no longer a link
to the persecution. It becomes impossible to establish a link between the
person’s claim and the documentary evidence.
[12]
Lastly, there is
nothing in the Board’s decision to suggest bias. The Board did not ignore the
totality of the evidence; it determined that some of the evidence was not
reliable. The Board considered the evidence as a whole and came to a
reasonable decision.
[13]
No question for
certification was proposed by the parties and there is none on these facts.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This
application is dismissed; and
2. No
question is certified.
“Russel W. Zinn”
Email this Content