Docket: IMM-427-15
Citation:
2015 FC 996
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec, August 21, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JENNIFER ST
LOUIS
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Preliminary
[1]
The credibility of an account as a whole cannot
be re-established by testimony that completely contradicts the written evidence
when said written evidence, in itself, comes from comments stated directly by
the person involved; a change of account further to the contradictions identified
becomes detrimental to the very crux of a claim when that account no longer
makes sense.
II.
Introduction
[2]
This is an application pursuant to the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA) for judicial review
of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dated January 5, 2015, allowing
the respondent’s appeal of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD),
granting the applicant refugee status.
III.
Facts
[3]
The applicant is a 25-years-old citizen of Haiti.
[4]
Sponsored by her mother, who lives in Canada, the
applicant applied for permanent residence on December 31, 2012.
[5]
The applicant arrived in Canada on February 19, 2014,
with a permanent resident visa that was issued on January 27, 2014.
[6]
Upon her arrival, the applicant was the subject of
an inadmissibility report prepared pursuant to subsection 44(1) of the
IRPA on the basis that she apparently told the immigration officer that she had
gotten married in Haiti on February 14, 2014, but failed to inform the Canadian
Embassy in Haiti of the change in her marital status.
[7]
The applicant was allowed to withdraw her
application to enter Canada and to leave Canada promptly to regularize her status
with the Canadian Embassy in Haiti.
[8]
The applicant remained in Canada and claimed
refugee protection on February 26, 2014.
[9]
The respondent intervened before the RPD,
alleging that the applicant’s credibility was undermined because she had not
declared her change in marital status. Furthermore, the respondent argued that
the applicant is not credible regarding her alleged fear in Haiti because she
demonstrated her intention of settling in Canada as early as December 2012, when
she filed her application for permanent residence.
[10]
On May 15, 2014, giving the applicant the
benefit of the doubt and finding that the allegations in her refugee claim form
were credible, the RPD granted the applicant refugee status.
IV.
Impugned decision
[11]
Following a hearing on December 15, 2014, the
RAD allowed the respondent’s appeal and substituted its decision for that of
the RPD, finding that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in
need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.
[12]
In its reasons, the RAD determined that the
evidence submitted by the respondent in support of the appeal raised a serious
issue with respect to the applicant’s credibility and contradicted, at first
glance, some of the applicant’s essential allegations before the RPD, namely
concerning her marital and family status and her subjective fear.
[13]
After reviewing the Federal Court case law
contemporaneous to its decision and the relevant sections of the IRPA, the RAD carried
out its own assessment of the evidence.
[14]
First, the RAD found that the applicant’s
failure to mention, in her basis of claim form, the existence of her half-brother,
who lived with her in Haiti, was not sufficient to undermine the applicant’s
general credibility.
[15]
Second, the RAD examined the contradictory
statements that the applicant made upon arriving in Canada, on February 19,
2014. The RAD noted that the explanations provided by the applicant to justify
those contradictions were themselves contradictory.
[16]
First, regarding her statements about her
marital status, the RAD noted that the applicant stated that she had gotten
married to not contradict what her uncle purportedly stated in respect of her (that
she had gotten married in February 2014), and then stated that she did not know
what her uncle had said and that, if she had known, she would have
re-established the facts, and then, finally, she stated that she had said that
she had gotten married because she had felt threatened by the immigration
officer. Before the RAD and the RPD, the applicant stated that she did not get
married on February 14, 2014, but that she had instead gotten engaged to the
man who she had been dating since 2008.
[17]
When asked to explain that contradictory
testimony, the applicant allegedly provided an unsatisfactory response.
[18]
Then, regarding her fear of return to Haiti, the
RAD noted that the applicant first stated that she feared returning, and then
stated that she did not know if she had been asked the question.
[19]
Given those contradictions, the RAD assigned
more probative value to the evidence submitted by the respondent than to the
applicant’s testimony, in particular, the notes entered into the Field
Operations Support System for the interviews that took place with the
applicant. The notes show that the applicant stated that she was married and
fears returning to her country. The RAD relied on the affidavit signed by the
officer who interviewed the applicant upon her arrival, which confirms those
statements.
[20]
Finally, the RAD found that, on a balance of
probabilities, the applicant is not credible with respect to at least two
important elements of her refugee claim, that is, her marital status and her
fear of return to Haiti.
[21]
More specifically, the RAD found that the
applicant did not demonstrate “the elements central to
her claim for refugee protection as alleged in her BOC Form, namely the fact
that she lived in Haiti under the continual threat of criminal gangs, given her
statements that she was not afraid to return to her country, and that this
danger would be far greater because she was allegedly [translation] ‘a girl on
her own’ in her country, given that I find that the evidence instead
demonstrates that she was married in Haiti” (RAD Decision, Applicant’s
Record, at page 21).
V.
Statutory provisions
[22]
Sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA state the law applicable
to the determination of refugee status in Canada:
|
Convention refugee
|
Définition de « réfugié »
|
|
96. A
Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of
persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group or political opinion,
|
96. A qualité de réfugié au sens de la
Convention — le réfugié — la personne qui, craignant avec raison d’être
persécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion, de sa nationalité, de son
appartenance à un groupe social ou de ses opinions politiques :
|
|
(a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and
is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the
protection of each of those countries; or
|
a) soit se trouve hors de tout pays
dont elle a la nationalité et ne peut ou, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut
se réclamer de la protection de chacun de ces pays;
|
|
(b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the
country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of
that fear, unwilling to return to that country.
|
b) soit, si elle n’a pas de
nationalité et se trouve hors du pays dans lequel elle avait sa résidence
habituelle, ne peut ni, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut y retourner.
|
|
Person in
need of protection
|
Personne à
protéger
|
|
97. (1)
A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their
country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of
nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them
personally
|
97. (1) A qualité de personne à
protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et serait personnellement, par
son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la nationalité ou, si elle n’a pas de
nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, exposée :
|
|
(a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist,
of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture;
or
|
a) soit au risque, s’il y a des motifs
sérieux de le croire, d’être soumise à la torture au sens de l’article
premier de la Convention contre la torture;
|
|
(b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and
unusual treatment or punishment if
|
b) soit à une menace à sa vie ou au
risque de traitements ou peines cruels et inusités dans le cas suivant :
|
|
(i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling
to avail themself of the protection of that country,
|
(i) elle ne peut ou, de ce fait, ne veut se réclamer de la
protection de ce pays,
|
|
(ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of
that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that
country,
|
(ii) elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce pays alors que
d’autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui s’y trouvent ne le sont
généralement pas,
|
|
(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions,
unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and
|
(iii) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de sanctions
légitimes — sauf celles infligées au mépris des normes internationales — et
inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles,
|
|
(iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country
to provide adequate health or medical care.
|
(iv) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de l’incapacité
du pays de fournir des soins médicaux ou de santé adéquats.
|
|
(2) A person in Canada who is a member of a class of persons
prescribed by the regulations as being in need of protection is also a person
in need of protection.
|
(2) A également qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se
trouve au Canada et fait partie d’une catégorie de personnes auxquelles est
reconnu par règlement le besoin de protection.
|
[23]
The following sections of the IRPA set out the
applicable criteria for the role of the RAD, the admissibility of evidence on
appeal and the holding of a hearing:
|
Appeal
|
Appel
|
|
110.
(1) Subject to subsections (1.1) and (2), a person or the Minister may
appeal, in accordance with the rules of the Board, on a question of law, of
fact or of mixed law and fact, to the Refugee Appeal Division against a
decision of the Refugee Protection Division to allow or reject the person’s
claim for refugee protection.
|
110. (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes
(1.1) et (2), la personne en cause et le ministre peuvent, conformément aux
règles de la Commission, porter en appel — relativement à une question de
droit, de fait ou mixte — auprès de la Section d’appel des réfugiés la
décision de la Section de la protection des réfugiés accordant ou rejetant la
demande d’asile.
|
|
Procedure
|
Fonctionnement
|
|
(3) Subject to subsections (3.1), (4) and (6), the Refugee Appeal
Division must proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the
proceedings of the Refugee Protection Division, and may accept documentary
evidence and written submissions from the Minister and the person who is the
subject of the appeal and, in the case of a matter that is conducted before a
panel of three members, written submissions from a representative or agent of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and any other person
described in the rules of the Board.
|
(3) Sous réserve des paragraphes (3.1), (4) et (6), la section
procède sans tenir d’audience en se fondant sur le dossier de la Section de
la protection des réfugiés, mais peut recevoir des éléments de preuve
documentaire et des observations écrites du ministre et de la personne en
cause ainsi que, s’agissant d’une affaire tenue devant un tribunal constitué
de trois commissaires, des observations écrites du représentant ou mandataire
du Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés et de toute autre
personne visée par les règles de la Commission.
|
|
Evidence that may be presented
|
Éléments de preuve admissibles
|
|
(4) On appeal, the person who is the subject of the appeal may
present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that
was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have
been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the
rejection.
|
(4) Dans le cadre de l’appel, la personne en cause ne peut
présenter que des éléments de preuve survenus depuis le rejet de sa demande
ou qui n’étaient alors pas normalement accessibles ou, s’ils l’étaient,
qu’elle n’aurait pas normalement présentés, dans les circonstances, au moment
du rejet.
|
|
Hearing
|
Audience
|
|
(6) The Refugee Appeal Division may hold a hearing if, in its opinion,
there is documentary evidence referred to in subsection (3)
|
(6) La section peut tenir une audience si elle estime qu’il existe
des éléments de preuve documentaire visés au paragraphe (3) qui, à la fois :
|
|
(a) that raises a serious issue with respect to the
credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal;
|
a) soulèvent une question importante
en ce qui concerne la crédibilité de la personne en cause;
|
|
(b) that is central to the decision with respect to the
refugee protection claim; and
|
b) sont essentiels pour la prise de la
décision relative à la demande d’asile;
|
|
(c) that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting
the refugee protection claim.
|
c) à supposer qu’ils soient admis,
justifieraient que la demande d’asile soit accordée ou refusée, selon le cas.
|
|
Decision
|
Décision
|
|
111.
(1) After considering the appeal, the Refugee Appeal Division shall make one
of the following decisions:
(a)
confirm the determination of the Refugee Protection Division;
(b) set
aside the determination and substitute a determination that, in its opinion,
should have been made; or
(c) refer
the matter to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination, giving
the directions to the Refugee Protection Division that it considers
appropriate.
|
111. (1) La Section d’appel des
réfugiés confirme la décision attaquée, casse la décision et y substitue la
décision qui aurait dû être rendue ou renvoie, conformément à ses
instructions, l’affaire à la Section de la protection des réfugiés.
|
VI.
Issue
[24]
Is the RAD decision reasonable in light of the
facts and the law?
VII.
Analysis
[25]
The applicant’s evidence adduced from the record
demonstrates that she was not credible on the very crux of the claim. That is
enough to demonstrate the reasonableness of the decision analyzed by the Court.
[26]
Furthermore, the applicant herself stated during
the second judicial review that she did not fear return to Haiti. Keeping that
in mind, the Court takes particular note of the account by which the applicant
came to Canada with a permanent resident visa and then claimed refugee status. The
whole refugee claim is implausible in light of the applicant’s previous account.
It clearly contradicts her prior allegations.
VIII.
Conclusion
[27]
In light of the foregoing, the application for
judicial review is dismissed.
Email this Content