Date: 20080522
Docket: IMM-4395-07
Citation: 2008 FC 644
Toronto, Ontario, May 22,
2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
KEDIJA
MELKA ANJETE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Kedija
Melka Anjete is a citizen of Ethiopia, whose claim for refugee protection was rejected by the
Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board on credibility
grounds. Ms. Anjete now seeks judicial review of that decision, asserting that
the Board erred in finding that there was no evidence that elderly members of
the Oromo ethnic group were targeted for persecution by the Ethiopian
government, when there was country condition information before the Board to
the contrary effect.
[2]
For
the reasons that follow, I am not persuaded that the Board erred as alleged.
As a consequence, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
I. Standard
of Review
[3]
Both
parties agree that the standard of review to be applied to the Board’s
credibility findings is that prescribed in paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal
Courts Act. That is, they say that the Board’s findings should not be
disturbed unless they are based on erroneous findings
of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the
material before it.
[4]
The Supreme Court of Canada did not address paragraph 18.1(4)(d) in Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick,
[2008] S.C.J. No. 9, and the effect of this statutory provision in light of the common
law jurisprudence with respect to standard of review is a question currently
before the Supreme Court in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v.
Khosa,
(File No. 31952).
[5]
I do not need to resolve this question for the purposes of this
application, however, as I am satisfied that the outcome would be the same,
whether I apply a ‘perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material
before the Board’ standard, or the reasonableness standard prescribed by Dunsmuir.
II. Analysis
[6]
Contrary
to Ms. Anjete’s submissions, the Board did not make a blanket finding that
there was no evidence that elderly Oromo individuals were ever targeted for
persecution by the Ethiopian government. A review of the reasons discloses that
the Board’s findings were directed to the risk faced by Ms. Anjete herself, in
light of the evidence regarding her particular circumstances.
[7]
The
first statement in the reasons with which Ms. Anjete takes issue is the Board’s
finding that the country condition information indicated that persecution was
directed “largely at professionals and students within the country”. However,
no arguments have been advanced to suggest that this finding was not grounded
in the evidence, or was otherwise unreasonable.
[8]
The
Board then went on to say that “There is no evidence that this elderly woman
would be attributed any political profile nor pose any ethnic threat to
government authorities” [emphasis added]. A review of the evidence that was
before the Board, including the transcript of Ms. Anjete’s testimony, confirms
that this finding was one that was reasonably open to the Board.
[9]
Ms. Anjete
also takes issue with the Board’s finding that “There is no evidence … that the
claimant, as an older person, would be specifically targeted given the
documentary evidence” [emphasis added]. In this regard, she points to a Human
Rights Watch report that refers to two incidents in which elderly Oromo men
were detained by Ethiopian government officials.
[10]
However,
a review of the circumstances of the two individuals referred to in the report
suggests that they were different than Ms. Anjete’s own situation. In one of
the cases, the detention evidently related to the fact that the individual’s
son was suspected of being a member of the Oromo Liberation Front. The other
elderly individual was suspected of having himself been involved with the OLF.
[11]
Moreover,
Ms. Anjete’s testimony at her refugee hearing provided an ample evidentiary
foundation for the Board’s finding that she did not have a profile that would attract
government attention.
[12]
Finally,
the Board had several other reasons for finding that Ms. Anjete’s story of
persecution at the hands of the Ethiopian government was simply not credible.
These included her one and a half year delay in leaving Ethiopia, her delay in
claiming once she got to Canada, and the fact that Ms. Anjete’s
daughter in Canada was seeking to have her mother come to Canada to help her with the
care of her four children. Taken together, these findings provided a
sufficient basis for rejecting the claim, and the Board’s decision in this
regard was reasonable.
III. Conclusion
[13]
For
these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
IV. Certification
[14]
Neither
party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This
application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2.
No serious question of general importance is certified.
“Anne
Mactavish”
Email this Content