Date: 20110902
Docket: IMM-4834-10
Citation: 2011 FC 1039
Ottawa, Ontario, September 2, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
VALERIENNE MIYA KIKA,
JEANNE NAMUNGUNGU KUBOTA,
PATRICK NAMUNGUNGU KUBOTA
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
On
the advice of their Canadian sponsor, Ms. Valerienne Miya Kika, her son,
Patrick, and her daughter, Jeanne, left their home in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo [DRC] in 2009 and made their way to a refugee
camp in Tanzania. A Canadian
immigration officer interviewed Ms. Kika in Bujumbura, Burundi and
considered her application for permanent residence in Canada. The officer
turned down her application primarily for a lack of evidence of persecution.
[2]
Ms.
Kika submits that the officer overlooked some important facts that were central
to her application and, therefore, rendered an unreasonable decision. She also
argues that the officer’s reasons were insufficient. She asks me to overturn
the officer’s decision and order a reassessment of her application by another
officer.
[3]
I
agree with Ms. Kika that the officer’s decision was unreasonable in the sense
that it did not take account of all of the relevant facts. I must, therefore,
allow this application for judicial review. It is unnecessary to consider
whether the officer’s reasons were adequate.
[4]
The
sole issue, therefore, is whether the officer’s decision was unreasonable.
II. Factual Background
[5]
Ms.
Kika claimed that her son, a priest, had been murdered in 1998 during a
massacre carried out by an army general, General Amisi Gabriel, who then
threatened to kill the rest of the family. She often had to flee her home to
escape danger, but always returned to her job as a school teacher in Uvira. For
example, in 2002, 2006 and 2007, she and her children were forced to hide in
the bush. In 2006, soldiers raped her during an attack.
[6]
Patrick
was particularly at risk because he was a witness to the events of 1998. He
claimed that he and another brother had been threatened with death. (Patrick,
however, had been unable to attend the interview with the officer).
III. The Officer’s Decision
[7]
The
officer considered Ms. Kika’s application on three separate bases: as a
Convention refugee abroad, and as a member of the country of asylum and source
country classes (under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227, ss 145, 147 and 148, respectively – see Annex A).
[8]
The
officer found that Ms. Kika did not fall within the source country class
because she was no longer resident in the country of her nationality. That
finding is not contested.
[9]
In
his letter to the applicants, the officer concluded that Ms. Kika’s fear of
persecution was not well-founded. In particular, the officer noted that Ms.
Kika did not meet the requirement of s 147 that she be “seriously and
personally affected” by civil war or armed conflict. The officer referred to
the murder of Ms. Kika’s son in 1978 (not 1998), and noted that she continued
in her teaching job until her retirement in 2007. She left the country only
when advised to do so by her sponsor; she did not flee out of fear. Finally,
the officer was concerned that none of the family members had registered with
the UNHCR.
[10]
The
officer’s notes disclose some additional information. The officer apparently
found Ms. Kika’s responses at the interview to be vague, confusing and
sometimes incoherent. The notes also make reference to Ms. Kika’s fear of
General Amisi Gabriel, and to her rape in 2006. They further record the fact
that Ms. Kika left the DRC, not only because her sponsor recommended it, but
because she was afraid of persecution.
IV. Was the Officer’s Decision
Unreasonable?
[11]
The
officer made no explicit credibility finding against Ms. Kika, although his
notes disclose some concerns. His reasoning, essentially, was that there was
insufficient evidence to support her claim of persecution.
[12]
In
his decision, the officer omitted reference to some important facts supporting
Ms. Kika’s application:
• her fear was not
founded solely on the murder of her son;
• the
alleged agent of persecution, General Amisi Gabriel, presented an ongoing risk
of harm;
• her rape in 2006;
• her ongoing fear of
persecution in DRC; and
• the risk to Patrick
as a witness to the 1998 massacre.
[13]
Ms.
Kika also contends that the officer made a serious factual error when he
determined that her son had been killed in 1978, not 1998. The 1998 date was
contained in supporting documents but, according to the officer’s notes, Ms.
Kika provided the 1978 date at the interview. The 1978 date is clearly
implausible - Ms. Kika could not have had an adult son in 1978 when she was 26.
Still, there was some evidence before the officer on which to base his finding.
[14]
However,
I find that the officer’s conclusion was unreasonable. While he did not
explicitly dispute the credibility of relevant evidence before him, he failed
to consider important elements of it, as outlined above, in his analysis of Ms.
Kika’s application. In particular, the officer apparently did not consider the
possibility that Ms. Kika had a gender-based claim for refugee protection as a
result of her sexual assault in 2006.
V. Conclusion and Disposition
[15]
The
officer’s decision was unreasonable in that it did not represent a defensible
outcome based on the law and the facts before him. I must, therefore, allow
this application for judicial review and order a reassessment of Ms. Kika’s
claim by another officer. Neither party proposed a question of general
importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT
is that
1.
The
application for judicial review is allowed and a new hearing, before a
different officer, is ordered;
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James W. O’Reilly”
Annex “A”
|
Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227
Member of
Convention refugees abroad class
145. A foreign national is a Convention
refugee abroad and a member of the Convention refugees abroad class if the
foreign national has been determined, outside Canada,
by an officer to be a Convention refugee.
Member of
country of asylum class
147. A foreign national is a member of the
country of asylum class if they have been determined by an officer to be in
need of resettlement because
(a)
they are outside all of their countries of nationality and habitual
residence; and
(b)
they have been, and continue to be, seriously and personally affected by
civil war, armed conflict or massive violation of human rights in each of
those countries.
Member of the
source country class
148. (1) A foreign national is a member of
the source country class if they have been determined by an officer to be in
need of resettlement because
(a)
they are residing in their country of nationality or habitual residence and
that country is a source country within the meaning of subsection (2) at the
time their permanent resident visa application is made as well as at the time
a visa is issued; and
(b)
they
(i)
are being seriously and personally affected by civil war or armed conflict in
that country,
(ii)
have been or are being detained or imprisoned with or without charges, or
subjected to some other form of penal control, as a direct result of an act
committed outside Canada that would, in Canada, be a legitimate expression of
freedom of thought or a legitimate exercise of civil rights pertaining to
dissent or trade union activity, or
(iii)
by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social
group, are unable or, by reason of such fear, unwilling to avail themself of
the protection of any of their countries of nationality or habitual
residence.
Source country
(2) A source
country is a country
(a)
where persons are in refugee-like situations as a result of civil war or
armed conflict or because their fundamental human rights are not respected;
(b)
where an officer works or makes routine working visits and is able to process
visa applications without endangering their own safety, the safety of
applicants or the safety of Canadian embassy staff;
(c)
where circumstances warrant humanitarian intervention by the Department in
order to implement the overall humanitarian strategies of the Government of
Canada, that intervention being in keeping with the work of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and
(d)
that is set out in Schedule 2.
SCHEDULE 2
(paragraph 148(2)(d)
and section 149)
1. Colombia
2. El Salvador
3. Guatemala
4. Democratic Republic of Congo
5. Sierra Leone
6. Sudan
|
Règlement
sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés, DORS/2002-227
Qualité
145. Est un
réfugié au sens de la Convention outre-frontières et appartient à la
catégorie des réfugiés au sens de cette convention l’étranger à qui un agent
a reconnu la qualité de réfugié alors qu’il se trouvait hors du Canada.
Catégorie de personnes de pays d’accueil
147. Appartient
à la catégorie de personnes de pays d’accueil l’étranger considéré par un
agent comme ayant besoin de se réinstaller en raison des circonstances
suivantes :
a) il se trouve hors de tout pays dont il a la nationalité ou
dans lequel il avait sa résidence habituelle;
b) une guerre civile, un conflit armé ou une violation massive
des droits de la personne dans chacun des pays en cause ont eu et continuent
d’avoir des conséquences graves et personnelles pour lui.
Catégorie de personnes de pays source
148. (1) Appartient
à la catégorie de personnes de pays source l’étranger considéré par un agent
comme ayant besoin de se réinstaller en raison des circonstances
suivantes :
a) d’une part, il réside dans le pays dont il a la nationalité ou
dans lequel il a sa résidence habituelle, lequel est un pays source au sens
du paragraphe (2) au moment de la présentation de la demande de visa de
résident permanent ainsi qu’au moment de la délivrance du visa;
b) d’autre part, selon le cas :
(i) une
guerre civile ou un conflit armé dans ce pays ont des conséquences graves et
personnelles pour lui,
(ii) il est
détenu ou emprisonné dans ce pays, ou l’a été, que ce soit ou non au titre
d’un acte d’accusation, ou il y fait ou y a fait périodiquement l’objet de
quelque autre forme de répression pénale, en raison d’actes commis hors du
Canada qui seraient considérés, au Canada, comme une expression légitime de
la liberté de pensée ou comme l’exercice légitime de libertés publiques
relatives à des activités syndicales ou à la dissidence,
(iii) craignant
avec raison d’être persécuté du fait de sa race, de sa religion, de sa
nationalité, de ses opinions politiques ou de son appartenance à un groupe
social particulier, il ne peut ou, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut se
réclamer de la protection du pays dont il a la nationalité ou de celui où il
a sa résidence habituelle.
Pays source
(2) Est un
pays source celui qui répond aux critères suivants :
a) une guerre civile, un conflit armé ou le non-respect des
droits fondamentaux de la personne font en sorte que les personnes qui s’y
trouvent sont dans une situation assimilable à celle de réfugiés au sens de
la Convention;
b) un agent y travaille ou s’y rend régulièrement dans le cadre
de son travail et est en mesure de traiter les demandes de visa sans compromettre
sa sécurité, celle des demandeurs ni celle du personnel de l’ambassade du
Canada;
c) les circonstances justifient une intervention d’ordre
humanitaire de la part du ministère pour mettre en oeuvre les stratégies
humanitaires globales du gouvernement canadien, intervention qui est en
accord avec le travail accompli par le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies
pour les réfugiés;
d) il figure à l’annexe 2.
ANNEXE 2
(alinéa 148(2)d) et article 149)
1. Colombie
2. El Salvador
3. Guatemala
4. République démocratique du Congo
5. Sierra Leone
6. Soudan
|
Email this Content