Docket: IMM-6861-11
Citation:
2012 FC 907
Ottawa, Ontario,
July 20, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
AND BETWEEN:
|
|
NAIMA ALI
ALL SAINTS CHURCH WINNIPEG
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
In
1991, Ms Naima Ali fled Somalia after the death of her stepmother, father and
brothers. She travelled with her half-brother Abdulkadir, her brother Ahmed,
and her mother, Ms Quresh Osman. Along the way, Abdulkadir and Ahmed were
captured by the militia and forced to work in a camp. After they escaped, the
family made its way to a refugee camp in Ethiopia, where they lived for
thirteen years. The family then 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 Ms Ali, as well as her
mother, brother, and half-brother. 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-6857-11 (Abdulkadir Ali) and IMM-6858-11 (Ahmed Ali)). This
decision relates solely Ms. Naima Ali.
[3]
Mr
Ali submits that the officer treated her unfairly by not giving her a chance to
address the officer’s concerns about her credibility and lack of identity
documents. She also contends that the officer rendered an unreasonable decision
because her reasons do not identify the basis for her doubts about Ms Ali’s
credibility. Further, the officer’s concerns related merely to peripheral
aspects of Ms Ali’s evidence, not the core issues. She asks me to quash the
officer’s decision and order another officer to reconsider her application.
[4]
I
can find no basis for overturning the officer’s decision. Ms Ali was given an
adequate opportunity to submit supporting evidence and to address the officer’s
credibility concerns. Further, the officer’s findings were not unreasonable;
they arose from the evidence before her and Ms Ali’s inability to explain
discrepancies in it. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial
review.
[5]
The
issues are:
1. Did the
officer treat Ms Ali unfairly?
2. Was the
officer’s decision unreasonable?
II. The Officer’s
Decision
[6]
The
officer had concerns about Ms Ali’s identity because she was unable to produce
satisfactory documentation. Ms Ali produced a letter dated July 3, 2007 from
the Office of the Prime Minister of Uganda confirming that she was seeking
asylum. The letter had been renewed once, but had expired by the time of the
interview. She also possessed a UNHCR document dated 2005. She had lost her
copy of a document attesting to her status as a refugee. She claimed to have a
ration card from the Nakivale refugee camp, but did not bring it to the
interview.
[7]
The
officer also had concerns about Ms Ali’s credibility and the composition of the
family, arising from the following evidence:
• Ms
Ali stated that a person named Idil Omar Ali was a relative and friend living
in Kampala who used to be married to her brother, Ahmed. Idil Omar and Ahmed
had a son together, but divorced in 2005. However, Ms Ali later stated that
Idil Omar was not a family member and had not been married to her brother;
• Ms
Ali did not have any documents from Ethiopia. The officer asked about her time
at the refugee camp. Ms Ali stated that she attended a school called “El Haj”
which was near the Galule block where the family lived. In her application
form, Ms Ali said that she had attended the Kabridafian Primary School.
[8]
The
officer gave Ms Ali a chance to respond to her concerns about this evidence. Ms
Ali said that she had made up a story about Idil Omar, but did not explain why
she did so. She also conceded that she might have been wrong about where they
had lived in the camp. Based on this evidence, the officer was not satisfied
that Ms Ali was a member of the Convention refugee abroad class or the country
of asylum class, and refused her application for permanent residence.
III. Issue One – Did the
officer treat Ms Ali unfairly?
[9]
Ms
Ali submits that the officer did not give her an adequate opportunity to
address her concerns. In particular, the officer did not give her a chance to
retrieve further documentation from the refugee camp. Ms Ali also suggests that
the officer should have recognized that she was a refugee since her
half-brother, Abdulkadir, had produced proof of his status. Further, the
officer identified the areas of her evidence that caused the officer to doubt
her credibility. It was unfair, therefore, for the officer to reach a
conclusion on her application without further input from Ms Ali.
[10]
In
my view, the officer treated Ms Ali fairly. Citizenship and Immigration Canada
[CIC] sent Ms Ali a letter dated March 2, 2011 listing the documents that were
required to support her application. Ms Ali did not respond to that letter and
brought only two stale-dated documents to the interview.
[11]
The
officer reasonably expected that Ms Ali should have been able to produce better
evidence of her identity. She had been given notice and an adequate opportunity
to submit the required documents. In addition, rather than pointing out a flaw
in the officer’s treatment of her, her reference to Abdulkadir’s evidence of
his refugee status simply underscores the fact that she could equally have
produced satisfactory documentation.
[12]
Regarding
Ms Ali’s credibility, the officer told Ms Ali, after the officer had spoken to
other family members, that there were inconsistencies in the evidence about the
identity of Idil Omar and about the family’s experiences in Ethiopia. The officer pointed out that she could confirm the name of Ms Ali’s school by
contacting the UNHCR. In response, Ms Ali changed her evidence about Idil Omar,
without explanation. She also conceded she may have made a mistake about the
name of the block where the family lived, but she said nothing further about
the school.
[13]
In
my view, the officer gave Ms Ali a fair chance to present adequate evidence of
her identity and to address the officer’s concerns about her credibility. The
officer did not treat Ms Ali unfairly.
IV. Issue Two – Was the
officer’s decision unreasonable?
[14]
Ms
Ali argues that the officer unreasonably concluded that she had been unable to
produce documents confirming that she had lived in Uganda. Further, she
maintains that the officer unreasonably concluded that her evidence about the
composition of the family and her time in Ethiopia cast doubt on the core of
her claim about the risk she faces in Somalia.
[15]
In
my view, the officer’s conclusions were supported by the evidence and,
therefore, were reasonable.
[16]
The
officer’s notes state that Ms Ali was “not able to produce documents despite
being in Uganda for stated 6 years.” This was not strictly correct as Ms Ali
had actually produced two documents. In the circumstances, however, I take it
that the officer meant that Ms Ali had not produced sufficient documentation,
not that she had provided none. As a resident of Uganda for six years, Ms Ali
had an opportunity to obtain better documentary evidence.
[17]
The
officer stated on cross-examination that she believed Ms Ali may have returned
to Somalia at some point, given the absence of good documentary evidence of her
residence in Uganda. However, the officer did not record that concern in her
notes and did not raise it at the interview. Still, the officer’s overarching
concern was the lack of supporting documentation. In the circumstances, the
officer’s concern was valid, and her conclusion that Ms Ali had failed to
provide sufficient evidence was not unreasonable.
[18]
Ms
Ali clearly provided inconsistent evidence about the identity of Idil Omar, and
about her time in an Ethiopian refugee camp. While this evidence did not go to
the core basis of her application – risk of mistreatment in Somalia – it did affect her overall credibility, particularly given the absence of supporting
documentation. In my view, the officer’s conclusion that Ms Ali had failed to
discharge the burden of proving that she was a member of the Convention refugee
abroad class or the country of asylum class was not unreasonable on the
evidence before her.
V. Conclusion and
Disposition
[19]
The
officer did not treat Ms Ali unfairly. She was given notice and an adequate
opportunity to present documentation to support her claim. The officer told Ms
Ali why she was concerned about her evidence and gave her a chance to respond.
Further, the officer’s conclusion that Ms Ali had failed to produce sufficient,
credible evidence to support her application was not unreasonable, given the
absence of documentary evidence and the contradictions in her oral testimony. I
must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
[20]
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?
[21]
No
questions should be certified. Question 1 does not arise because the officer
based her decision mainly on the lack of supporting documents and the contradictions
in Ms Ali’s evidence, not on the evidence of related applicants. Question 2
does not arise because the officer did, in fact, disclose the inconsistencies
and gave Ms Ali a chance to respond.
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