Date:
20130618
Docket:
IMM-8532-12
Citation:
2013 FC 672
Toronto, Ontario,
June 18, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
ESHETU NEGUSSIE
GEBRE
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Mr
Eshetu Negussie Gebre claimed refugee protection in Canada based on his fear of
political persecution in Ethiopia. He stated that he had been arrested,
detained and beaten on a number of occasions because of his involvement in an
opposition party. Further, he risked mistreatment because of his Amhara
ethnicity.
[2]
A
panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed Mr Gebre’s claim because
it disbelieved his account of events in Ethiopia. Mr Gebre claimed to have been
an organizer of demonstrations, but the evidence did not support that
assertion. Rather, the Board found that he was simply a member of an opposition
party. It did not believe that Mr Gebre had been arrested or beaten. Further,
it concluded that he had lived safely in Jimma for a number of years and could
do so again.
[3]
In
addition, the Board concluded that Mr Gebre had delayed making a refugee claim
in Canada, which contradicted his claim to be at risk of persecution in Ethiopia.
[4]
Mr
Gebre does not strenuously dispute the Board’s credibility findings or its
conclusion that his delay in claiming refugee protection in Canada was inconsistent with a fear of persecution in Ethiopia. However, he maintains that the Board
failed to recognize that he faced a risk of persecution simply by virtue of his
membership in an opposition party and because of his father’s political
activities. He asks me to quash the Board’s decision and order a new hearing
before a different panel.
[5]
I
agree that a new hearing is required. The Board overlooked documentary evidence
showing that ordinary members of opposition parties, and their families, are
subjected to persecution in Ethiopia. Therefore, even though the Board was
entitled to conclude that Mr Gebre had not been arrested, detained, or beaten,
it failed to recognize that he faced persecution based solely on his membership
in an opposition party. Accordingly, I must allow this application for judicial
review.
[6]
The
sole issue is whether the Board’s decision was unreasonable.
II. Was the Board’s
Decision Unreasonable?
[7]
The
Minister submits that the Board reasonably concluded that Mr Gebre had no
leadership role in the opposition, and was never arrested or detained. Further,
he had never experienced persecution based on his Amhara ethnicity.
[8]
In
my view, the Board appeared to overlook the documentary evidence clearly showing
that ordinary members of opposition parties, and their families, face
persecution in Ethiopia. Therefore, its finding that Mr Gebre held no leadership
position and had not been physically mistreated was not enough to dispose of
his claim.
[9]
In
particular, the evidence showed that Mr Gebre is currently a member of the
Unity for Democracy party (UDJ) in Canada. The Board found that the letter containing
this information did not provide proof of a risk to Mr Gebre. However, the
letter specifically referred to dangers that he would encounter on his return
to Ethiopia. The Board had to address whether this evidence, and the other
evidence relating to the potential risk to Mr Gebre, showed that he faced a
reasonable chance of persecution in Ethiopia if he returned there. The question
is whether there was “a residuum of reliable evidence to support a well-founded
fear of persecution”, notwithstanding that some of the evidence put forward by
the claimant should be discounted: Joseph v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2011 FC 548, at para 11.
[10]
Finally,
it is not clear from the Board’s reasons that it considered the risk to Mr
Gebre as a person of Amhara ethnicity.
[11]
Therefore,
I am satisfied that the Board’s decision was unreasonable.
III. Conclusion and
Disposition
[12]
While
the Board may have made reasonable conclusions about Mr Gebre’s activities in Ethiopia and his lack of subjective fear of persecution when he arrived in Canada, it failed to consider whether there was still a basis for his claim of refugee protection
because of his ethnicity and membership in an opposition political party.
Therefore, I find that the Board’s decision was unreasonable and must order a
new hearing before a different panel. 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. The matter is referred back to the
Board for a new hearing before a different panel;
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content