Docket: IMM-6857-11
Citation:
2012 FC 909
Ottawa, Ontario,
July 20, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
ABDULKADIR ALI
ALL SAINTS CHURCH WINNIPEG
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
In
1991, Mr Adulkadir Ali fled the fighting in Somalia with other family members.
He and his half-brother Ahmed were captured by the militia and forced to work
in a camp. After he escaped, the family made its way to a refugee camp in Ethiopia, where they lived for thirteen years. The family travelled to Uganda in 2005, and the following year applied for permanent residence in Canada as members of the
Convention refugee abroad class or the country of asylum class. The family is
sponsored by All Saints Church in Winnipeg.
[2]
In
2011, a visa officer in Kampala, Uganda interviewed Mr Ali, as well as his
stepmother, half-brother and half-sister. The officer denied their applications
for a lack of credible evidence. All four applicants have sought judicial
review. I have dealt with their applications separately (see IMM-6862-11 (Quresh
Osman), IMM-6858-11 (Ahmed Ali) and IMM-6861-11 (Naima Ali)).
This decision relates solely Mr Abdulkadir Ali.
[3]
Mr
Ali submits that the officer rendered an unreasonable decision because she did
not consider Mr Ali’s explanation for the inconsistencies in his application
and wrongly concluded that Mr Ali could live safely in Ethiopia. He asks me to quash the officer’s decision and order another officer to reconsider his
application.
[4]
I
can find no basis for overturning the officer’s decision. Mr Ali did not
provide the officer with a valid explanation for his inconsistent evidence.
Further, the officer reasonably found that Mr Ali could live safely with his
wife in Ethiopia, where she was a citizen. I must, therefore, dismiss this
application for judicial review.
[5]
The
sole issue is whether the officer’s decision was unreasonable.
II. The Officer’s Decision
[6]
The
officer had concerns about Mr Ali’s credibility because of inconsistencies in
his evidence. For example, he said in his application form that the militia
detained him in a camp for a year. He escaped with the help of some militia
men, who then helped him cross the border to Ethiopia.
[7]
However,
in the interview, he said he had been detained for only 20 or 30 days. His
stepmother arranged his release by paying a bribe. He was not assisted by
militia men.
[8]
In
her notes, the officer also observed that Mr Ali had a safe alternative to
acquiring permanent residence in Canada. Since his wife is a citizen of Ethiopia, he could live safely there.
[9]
The
officer concluded that Mr Ali did not meet the requirements for permanent
residence, and dismissed his application.
III. Was the Officer’s
Decision Unreasonable?
[10]
Mr
Ali contends that he gave the officer a good explanation for the
inconsistencies in his evidence. He said that a Somali man helped him fill out
his application. The man knew little Somali and Mr Ali knew little English.
Therefore, he could not verify the information on the form.
[11]
Mr
Ali also maintains that the officer’s observations about his wife were not
mentioned in the officer’s letter of refusal. Therefore, they do not constitute
a proper reason for refusing his application.
[12]
As
I review the record, Mr Ali did not cite communication difficulties as an
explanation for the inconsistencies in his evidence. When the officer asked him
who had helped him with the application, Mr Ali told the officer about the
Somali man. However, he did not attribute the inconsistencies in his evidence
to any problems of communication. When the officer gave Mr Ali an opportunity
to explain the discrepancies, he simply “asked for mercy.” In my view, the
officer’s credibility findings were not unreasonable on the evidence.
[13]
The
officer’s reasons are not limited to what is stated in the refusal letter. They
include her notes, and in those notes the officer recorded her concern that Mr
Ali had a safe alternative in Ethiopia because of his wife’s nationality. The
officer raised this concern with Mr Ali, who stated that he had not applied for
citizenship in Ethiopia was because his father-in-law opposed it. The officer’s
suggestion that Mr Ali had a safe alternative was, therefore, not unreasonable.
IV. Conclusion and
Disposition
[14]
The
officer’s reasons accorded with the evidence before her and her conclusion
represented a defensible outcome based on the facts and the law. Accordingly,
her decision was not unreasonable and I must, therefore, dismiss this
application for judicial review.
[15]
Counsel
for Mr Ali proposed the following questions for certification:
1. In an
application for permanent residence at a Canadian visa office abroad, does the
visa office breach the duty of fairness owed the applicant by basing the
decision in part on interviews with other, related applicants, but not
disclosing the entirety of those other interviews to the applicant with an
opportunity for comment?
2. Is
there a breach in the duty of fairness owed an application for immigration at a
visa post abroad where
(a) the
visa office interviews a number of related applicants separately,
(b) refuses the
application of the applicant based on inconsistencies with the interviews of
the other related applicants, and
(c) the
visa office does not disclose to the applicant the inconsistencies with an
opportunity to respond?
[16]
Neither
question should be stated. Question 1 does not arise because the officer did
not rely on evidence from other applicants. For the same reason, Question 2
does not arise.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
No
serious question of general importance will be stated.
“James W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content