Date:
20121101
Docket:
IMM-1091-12
Citation:
2012 FC 1279
Toronto, Ontario, November 1, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
|
|
HIRUT GETANEH
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
SHORE J.
[1]
The
establishment of identity is the key by which to commence any immigration
proceeding. Without the identification of an individual, no commencement point
to a narrative exists. Every narrative needs a designation, a point of view of
an individual from whom a narrative emanates. Without an identifiable
individual, a story never, formally, begins.
[2]
The
Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board denied
the claim for the refugee protection of the Applicant.
[3]
The
claim of the Applicant was presented on the basis of an alleged fear of
persecution for having been a member of the All-Amhara People’s Organization
[AAPO].
[4]
The
claim was denied as the identity of the Applicant could not be ascertained by
the RPD.
[5]
Rule
7 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2002-228 stipulates:
|
Documents establishing identity
and other elements of the claim
7. The claimant must provide
acceptable documents establishing identity and other elements of the claim. A
claimant who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they were
not provided and what steps were taken to obtain them.
|
Documents d’identité et
autres elements de la demande
7. Le demandeur d’aisle
transmet à la Section des documents acceptables pour établir son identité et
les autres éléments de sa demande. S’il ne peut le faire, il en donne la
raison et indique quelles mesures il a prises pour s’en procurer.
|
[6]
The
Applicant traveled to Canada on an Israeli passport that did not belong to her;
as she did not have any identity documents, she was detained (although later
released on the basis of a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
[UNHCR] document that bore her photograph; and which she had related to her
former alleged Party membership; however, she could not confirm, through
evidence, membership therein.
[7]
No
evidence whatsoever supported the Applicant’s alleged travel route, nor could
the Applicant adequately explain her having waited two years prior to
requesting asylum.
[8]
No
corroboration was obtained by the RPD from the Applicant in respect of her
(former alleged) membership or activities in the AAPO.
[9]
The
Applicant, although she had lived in Israel for (9) nine years, had not been
granted refugee status therein.
[10]
As
Amharic is spoken, outside of Ethiopia, in a number of countries in the Horn of
Africa her language ability did not prove her identity any further.
[11]
The
Applicant remains unknown, as to her identity, having traveled twice on false
passports.
[12]
The
Applicant spent a protracted period of time in Israel from which she was
obliged to leave; she then traveled on a false Israeli passport.
[13]
The
decision of the RPD is reasonable under the circumstances as nothing can be
ascertained as to the identity of the Applicant which still remains the subject
of a conundrum as to who she is, what she did; from where she emanates and, as
to what her intentions imply.
[14]
On
the basis of the above, the Applicant’s application for judicial review is
dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that
the Applicant’s application for judicial review be
dismissed. No question of general importance for certification.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Email this Content