Docket: IMM-7599-13
Citation:
2014 FC 851
[UNREVISED
ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, September 8, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Roy
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
BHOYE SARAYAH BARRY
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
ORDER AND REASONS
[1]
CONSIDERING an
application for judicial review, pursuant to section 72 of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (Act), of a decision by the
Refugee Protection Division (RPD);
[2]
CONSIDERING that
the RPD found that the applicant is not a refugee or a person in need of
protection;
[3]
UPON review of
the record and upon hearing the parties. The only issue in this case is whether
the RPD made an unreasonable finding that the applicant does not qualify under
sections 96 and 97 of the Act because he was unable to establish his identity. Furthermore,
in the alternative, the RPD also found that the account provided by the
applicant was not credible. That resulted in a negative decision on Mr. Barry’s
claim.
[4]
The applicant states that he is a young man from
Guinea who was 18 years old when he entered Canada. The first difficulty the
RPD encountered was that the applicant did not conclusively establish his
identity. In fact, he submitted a birth certificate that was apparently
prepared in November 2011 and contained information that was crossed out and
errors (spelling mistakes). Moreover, he stated that he is his mother’s fourth
child while the birth certificate states that he is her third child. The
applicant also produced a passport obtained early in 2012, a passport that was
not used during his entry into Canada, which purportedly occurred on March 15,
2012. The applicant was also very vague with respect to the circumstances that
brought him to Canada, although he claims that he was assisted by someone he
met at the home of his aunt in Dakar, Senegal. It is that person who
purportedly dealt with the Canadian authorities upon arrival into the country
and the applicant does not know which document was produced to allow him to
cross the border.
[5]
Evidently, as a result, it was difficult to
establish the applicant’s identity conclusively. That is the RPD’s finding and
the applicant was unable to undermine that finding. The standard of review in such
matters is reasonableness and findings by the RPD must be shown to meet the
test in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at
paragraph 47.
[6]
But the RPD did not stop there. In fact, the
decision-maker examined the applicant’s account with respect to why he claims
that he is a person in need of protection in Canada and it was quite obvious
that his account lacks credibility. The account does not have the specificity that
a decision-maker would expect. An applicant must be able to explain why he would
file a complaint with the police in another sub-prefecture for actions that
allegedly took place at home. Furthermore, the applicant had a lot of
difficulty clearly stating the date on which he filed a complaint. He also
contradicted himself with respect to the identity of his apparent agent of
persecution. He was no more able to identify the police officer who apparently
received his complaint and whose name appears on the documents provided by the
applicant himself.
[7]
Under these circumstances, the only finding the
RPD could make was that the lack of clear identification by the applicant and
the non credible account of the events that allegedly brought him to Canada render his claim ineligible. The Court finds that the application for judicial
review must be dismissed. There is no question of general importance for
certification.
ORDER
[8]
THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no
question of general importance for certification.
“Yvan Roy”
Certified true translation
Janine Anderson, Translator
Email this Content