Docket: IMM-2098-11
Citation: 2011 FC 1304
Toronto,
Ontario, November 14, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
BETWEEN:
|
|
DEREJE GEDLU TESSEMA
REBECCA ASRAT BOGALE
SARON DEREJE GEDLU
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The
present Application concerns a negative decision of the Refugee Protection
Division (RPD) with respect to the claim for protection of Dereje Gedlu
Tessema, the Principle Applicant, his wife Rebecca Asrat Bogale, the
Applicant, and their daughter, Saron Dereje Gedlu. The RPD rejected the
claim on the basis of a negative credibility finding with respect to the
Applicant’s evidence.
[2]
The
Principal Applicant and the Applicant were both born in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Their
daughter was born in Paris, France in 2008; all three are citizens of
Ethiopia. The Applicant’s father, Colonel Asrat Bogale, was a political leader
of an Ethiopian opposition party, the Ethiopian Unity and Patriotic Front. The
Applicant moved to France in 2005 as secretary to the deputy permanent
delegation of Ethiopia at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization headquarters. The Principal Applicant joined the
Applicant in Paris shortly thereafter. When Ethiopian elections took place in
2005, the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs questioned the Applicant’s
position at her politically sensitive post. In 2009, the Applicant learned that
she and her husband were both named on a list complied by the Ethiopian Embassy
in Paris as working in opposition to the government. In July of 2009 the
Applicant’s employment was terminated and she was instructed to return to
Ethiopia and report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
[3]
The
Applicants travelled to Canada in mid-July, and, according to the Applicant’s
evidence, were informed that upon return to Ethiopia the government would
interrogate the Applicant. On September 1, 2009 the Applicants claimed refugee
protection. The information received by the Applicant is contained in an email
dated July 24, 2009 and two attached documents. The contents of the email and each
of the two attachments are crucial to the Applicant’s claim.
[4]
The
email states as follows:
Eridetnesh
Selam, my dear how are you. When you told
me the other day that u you are called to Addis, It seemed to me very strange
because I never heard a local staff that is recruited from outside of MFA would
be called to the head office. And if i remember correctly u were confused too.
Anyway I’ve got a report that your ambassador copied our office.
When I read the report, this morning, I
couldn’t believe my eyes. It was sent to the Policy General Directorate. Thanks
to God I scanned the part which concerns you, as well as a letter of feedback
to that report. Things do not look good here. Please don’t be naive to trust
them. Anyways please call me on my cell not at the office nor at my house I’ll
tell u everything.
Call me please,
chaw, ADI
(Certified Tribunal Record, p. 293)
The first attachment, having
no heading,
salutation or signature, is an internal performance review that includes
the following commentary [TRANSLATION]:
Pertaining to Mrs. Rebecca Asrat Secretary
to the Deputy Permanent Delegation of Ethiopia to UNESCO
From the outset, we would like to
indicate the reason why we decided to write our assessment on the above
mentioned staff as a case that is different and unique and has to come outside
the frame box devised for general assessment of all other staffs. In April
2005, Mrs. Rebecca Asrat Bogale joined the Permanent Delegation of Ethiopia to
UNESCO. As regards work performance, punctuality and conduct we give her the
grade ‘Good’. Nevertheless, in our assessment the key point we would like to
stress is that intricacies and constant indifference we observed in her when it
comes to promoting Ethiopian government political stands at work.
Mrs. Rebecca’s father, Colonel Asrat
Bogale is living in France and has remained a diehard opposition political
group leader against the Ethiopian Government. The group he leads is known as the
Ethiopian Unity Patriotic Front. Mrs. Rebecca lives at the same house with her
father. We don’t know if the people recruiting her for the Secretary position
here in Paris initially knew about her father’s political stand against the
incumbent regime and his residence in France or if they recruited her by sheer
mistake. Nevertheless as Mrs. Rebecca was restricted only to work within
Permanent Delegation Office the chances that she would come across sensitive
political issues were limited. Nevertheless, still we remain seriously worried
in case she may access restricted information when and if she is asked to cover
the duties of the Chief Secretary at times when the later is absent from duty.
Indeed, in this connection, we made closer investigation and we reached the
following conclusions.
Mrs. Rebecca has been indirectly
participating in what Colonel Asrat Bogale write up and disseminates to the
public against the incumbent Ethiopian regime in the form of political notes,
leaflets, fliers, and political opposition papers. We have evidence that Mrs.
Rebecca has even used email to dispatch secretly some of her father’s political
opposition messages to the wider public.
We have evidence that Mrs. Rebecca did
take part in typing and distributing among Ethiopian origin communities Colonel
Asrat’s opposition books and different materials published soon after the 2005
election in Ethiopia.
Whenever senior Ethiopian government
officials visit France and hold speeches we have observed Mrs. Rebecca
frequented to refrain from attending such meetings.
As regards getting release of the
initially allotted fund for the 2007-2008 UNESCO’s Participation Programme,
Mrs. Rebecca was particularly assigned to follow-up this case with the Addis
Ababa National UNESCO office and see to it that the fund is granted out in
time. But as she was not able to convince the UNESCO concerned office the fund
was never released.
Mrs. Rebecca was assigned to do
constituency work both among Ethiopians working within the main UNESCO office
and among Ethiopian origin community members living in Paris. But she was
reluctant on carrying out this task as a result of which it never materialized.
Finally as regards weather (sic) to renew
Mrs. Rebecca’s contract or not we have made the following decision. As far as
we deem it, if we are to suggest the dismissal of Mrs. Rebecca from her
position, this will provide her father, Colonel Asrat Bogale, the venue to
dispatch political papers, and broadcast interviews over the local radio
stations against the government of Ethiopian; he would even aggravate the
political milieu against the forthcoming 2010 election, which we try to
minimize mishaps as much as possible. Hence Mrs. Rebecca’s case must be handled
with due focus on the above mentioned considerations; and at the same time in
more settled manner for the time being.
(Certified
Tribunal Record, pp. 299 - 300)
The second attachment is: written on Ministry
of Foreign Affairs letterhead; dated May 20, 2009; headed URGENT FAX MESSAGE;
addressed to “Her Excellency Ambassador Tadelech Haile Mikael, Ethiopian
Ambassador in France & UNESCO Permanent Delegate”; and signed by
“Werkalemahu Desta, Human Resources Management, Assistant Director General,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs”. This document reads as follows [TRANSLATION]:
[…]
Regarding Mrs. Rebecca Asrat,
we believe that the situation should be highly cautiously handled. We are
aware that Colonel Asrat Bogale is a leader of an organized radical opposition
group. It is clear that the above mentioned woman can have substantial
information about this organized group. Therefore, as we need to
interrogate her, a letter of transfer to the Head Office should be handed to
her by the diplomatic mission.
[Emphasis added]
(Certified Tribunal Record, p. 306)
[5]
In
her PIF (Applicants’ Application Record, p. 39) and in her evidence before the
RPD (Certified Tribunal Record, p. 381) the Applicant maintained that the second
attachment is a critical piece of evidence supporting her claim for protection.
However, the only statement in the RPD’s decision that refers to the email and
what was attached, is with respect to the first attachment:
[…]
The claimant testified that,
after she arrived in Canada, she received a warning e-mail with an
attachment from Adi, a friend of a friend in the Ethiopian foreign office
in Addis Ababa. The e-mail was sent July 24, 2009. The claimant testified
that Adi, while working at the Foreign Affairs office in Addis Ababa, allegedly
came across a private document [the attachment] regarding the claimant
from the Ethiopian authorities. The claimant alleges that it is the
information in the attachment that caused her to apply for refugee status.
It is not apparent by whom the attached document is written, or to whom
it is sent; it has no heading, salutation or signature; it has no date.
Therefore, the panel gives it little weight.
[…]
[Emphasis added]
(Decision, para. 20)
There is no mention of the second attachment.
This fact is evidence that the document was not considered in reaching the
decision. Indeed, Counsel for the Applicants argues that the failure of the RPD
to consider the contents of the second attachment renders the decision as unreasonable
because the Applicant’s claim, in large part, is based on the second
attachment. I agree.
[6]
As
a result I find that the decision under review was rendered in reviewable
error.
ORDER
THIS COURT
ORDERS that:
The decision
under review is set aside and the matter is referred back for redetermination
by a differently constituted panel.
There is no
question to certify.
“Douglas
R. Campbell”
Email this Content