Docket:
IMM-4974-11
Citation:
2012 FC 151
[UNREVISED ENGLISH
CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, February 8, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
BETWEEN:
|
|
MUNEZERO PAMELA
KARAMBIZI
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
applicant is challenging the lawfulness of a decision by the Refugee Protection
Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (panel), dated July 12, 2011, rejecting
her refugee claim on the basis of a lack of credibility and subjective fear,
and based on state protection, which also was available, according to the panel.
[2]
The
applicant is a citizen of Rwanda. During the 1994 genocide, she was nine years
old; she states that she fears the perpetrators of genocide who attacked and
raped her and against whom she testified before the Gacaca court in October
2006 (Gacaca court). In August 2007, the applicant moved away from the city she
was living in. In the following months, she took some training and worked. In
June 2008, she left for the United States, where she claimed asylum, having obtained
a student visa in March 2008. However, she withdrew her American claim and left
for Canada in June 2009, where she filed the refugee protection claim at
issue here.
[3]
The
applicant’s fear of persecution is based on a series of events that occurred in
the fall of 2006. In her Personal Information Form and during the hearing, the
applicant stated that she testified against her former attackers before the Gacaca
court in October 2006. After that testimony, she allegedly received death
threats and was purportedly attacked and raped by those same perpetrators of
genocide. After the attack, she underwent a medical exam at the King Faisal
Hospital. The panel did not believe the applicant because it found many
contradictions in the essential aspects of her narrative.
[4]
First,
the certificate of participation in the Gacaca court indicates that the
applicant testified on November 10, 2006, and not in October of that same year.
The applicant specifies that, in November, she had requested protection from
the judges, but the panel rejected that explanation: the certificate does not mention
any request for protection, but rather the testimony date. If the applicant did
not testify in October 2006, but in November 2006, as indicated by the Gacaca court
certificate, she could not have been attacked by those same perpetrators of
genocide in October 2006 further to testimony that had not yet occurred. Today,
the applicant states that she simply got the date wrong. That explanation was
never advanced before the panel.
[5]
Second,
the medical certificate from the King Faisal Hospital dated October 19, 2006,
does not mention that the applicant suffered injuries, but simply states that
she underwent a physical exam. The applicant explained that she did not mention
that she had been raped because she was ashamed, but the panel rejected that
explanation, after considering the psychologist’s comments that sexual assault victims
often remain silent. The fact remains that the medical certificate does not
mention any injury. Similarly, when the panel asked her why her father had
never filed a complaint with the police, the applicant stated that her parents
were not aware of the rape, only the attack. The panel rejected that
explanation because her father holds a position at the top of the political
hierarchy in Rwanda. Because he knew about the supposed attack on his
daughter—he even accompanied her to the hospital—it is not plausible that her
father failed to report the attack to the police.
[6]
It
should be noted that the panel is in a better position than the Court to assess
credibility issues. In its decision, the panel properly explained the contradictions
on which it relied to support its negative credibility finding. The panel did
not rely on insignificant contradictions—it relied on a significant
contradiction with respect to the date of the persecution at the heart of the
refugee claim. In addition, the medical certificate does not support the claim
of assault or rape. Furthermore, the panel was correct in considering the time lines
at issue and the applicant’s future conduct in Rwanda and in the United Sates,
where she clearly invented another story of persecution. It was exclusively up
to the panel to assess the applicant’s credibility and it was entitled to
reject the explanations provided. The Court is not here to substitute its
judgment for that of the panel when its finding is based on the evidence and
falls within the range of possible outcomes which are defensible in respect of
the facts and law.
[7]
It
should be noted that the alleged attack on the applicant purportedly occurred
in October 2006. However, she did not leave Rwanda until June 2008. Even
though she states that she tried to get information from the embassies during
that time as she was without the financial means to leave earlier, the panel
rejected that explanation. The panel believes that if she had actually been a
victim of an attack and threats, she would not have waited more than ten months
before taking steps to leave the country. Instead, she took some training and
worked. The applicant’s conduct is therefore not consistent with that of a
person who fears persecution or fears for his or her life. That is another
reasonable finding of fact under the circumstances.
[8]
Finally,
in the alternative, the panel finds that even if it had believed the
applicant’s narrative, the applicant did not rebut the presumption of state
protection. It is unnecessary to focus on the state protection issue because
the negative credibility finding and the absence of a subjective fear were
sufficient to reject the refugee claim. The panel relied on the documentary
evidence in the record. Moreover, it was exclusively up to the panel to assess
the explanations provided by the applicant. Although she never filed a complaint
with the Rwandan authorities, the applicant alleges that she asked for help
from the Gacaca court judges in November 2006 after the hearings, which is also
implausible in the panel’s opinion. Regardless, the judges apparently told her
the following [translation] “be on
your way and everything will be fine”. Furthermore, the Gacaca court is not
responsible for protecting those who testify before it. Even though the
applicant generally alleges that the panel disregarded the documentary
evidence, she did not identify any specific document that the panel failed to
consider.
[9]
Finally,
there is no support for the proposition that the panel did not consider the
fact that she belongs to a vulnerable group, her psychological state and the
situation in Rwanda. In short, the panel did not fail to consider the Gender
Guidelines or any piece of contradictory documentary evidence in the record.
The issue was clearly the credibility of the applicant’s narrative, and in that
regard, the panel’s findings, which are noted above, are reasonable in all
respects. Furthermore, even though the applicant generally alleges that the
panel disregarded the documentary evidence, she did not identify any specific
document that the panel failed to consider.
[10]
For
these reasons, the application for judicial review must fail. Counsel raised no
question of general importance.
JUDGMENT
THE
COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this application for judicial
review is dismissed. No question will be certified.
“Luc
Martineau”
Certified
true translation
Janine Anderson,
Translator
Email this Content