Docket: IMM-2617-15
Citation:
2016 FC 630
Ottawa, Ontario, June 7, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
GEMECHU SHONORA
GETA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr Gemechu Shonora Geta arrived in Canada in
2008 from Ethiopia in order to study at Dalhousie University. In 2015, he
claimed refugee protection based on his fear of persecution in Ethiopia as a
member of the Oromo ethnic group.
[2]
A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board
dismissed Mr Geta’s application based on a lack of credible evidence. In
particular, while Mr Geta claimed to have participated in a number of
demonstrations in Ethiopia before he came to Canada, the Board found that he
was uncertain about the dates of those events and failed to provide details in
his written narrative. Similarly, the Board did not accept that Mr Geta’s
family had been contacted by security officers, as he had claimed, since he had
not mentioned that fact in his written narrative. In addition, Mr Geta claimed
to have been detained for ten days when he visited Ethiopia in 2014, yet social
media evidence showed him socializing with friends during at that time.
Further, Mr Geta claimed to be an active member of the Nova Scotia Oromo
Community Association (OCA). However, he indicated in his written application
that he did not belong to any organization and, before the Board, he could not
support his claim of membership with persuasive documentary evidence. Finally, the
Board expressed doubt about Mr Geta’s subjective fear of persecution given that
he did not claim refugee protection immediately upon returning to Canada in
2014; he waited until February 2015.
[3]
The Board did accept, however, that Mr Geta made
a power-point presentation in 2010 to members of the OCA, and that he
participated in a public protest in Toronto in 2015 that was attended by about
80 persons. Still, it found that there was no credible basis for Mr Geta’s
claim.
[4]
Mr Geta argues that the Board’s conclusions were
unreasonable because they were unsupported by the evidence and wrong in law. He
asks me to quash its conclusion and order another panel to reconsider his
claim.
[5]
I can find no basis for overturning the Board’s
decision and I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
The sole issue is whether the Board’s decision was unreasonable.
II.
Was the Board’s decision unreasonable?
[6]
Mr Geta maintains that the Board should have
considered whether his political views, expressed in his 2010 presentation and
his involvement in the 2015 demonstration, would come to the attention of
Ethiopian authorities. Further, he contends that the Board applied the wrong
test – it found that there was insufficient evidence to show that his
activities would be brought to the attention of Ethiopian authorities,
which implies that he had to meet a standard of proof “on
the balance of probabilities”, not the proper standard of “more than a
mere possibility” of persecution.
[7]
In addition, Mr Geta submits that the Board
wrongly concluded that his delay in applying for refugee protection after his
return to Canada in 2014 reflected a lack of subjective fear of persecution. In
fact, he waited only eleven days after the expiration of his work permit to
make a claim, and he actually had 90 days to apply for his visa to be restored.
Therefore, his delay in applying for refugee status did not show a lack of
subjective fear. Similarly, Mr Geta argues that the Board drew an unreasonable
adverse inference from the fact that his family in Ethiopia had not been
targeted for mistreatment as a consequence of his alleged activities. He
suggests that the evidence showed that targeting was merely possible rather
than probable.
[8]
Finally, Mr Geta contends that the Board’s
conclusion that there was no credible basis for his claim was unreasonable. He
points out that the Board accepted that he made the 2010 presentation, that he
attended the 2015 demonstration, and that Ethiopian authorities monitor
opposition activities abroad. There was, therefore, in his view, at least some
credible evidence underlying his claim.
[9]
I disagree with Mr Geta’s submissions.
[10]
Regarding whether Mr Geta’s activities would
come to the attention of Ethiopian authorities, the evidence before the Board
did not show sufficient indicia of risk that he would attract the attention of
officials as a returnee. As for the test the Board applied, I note that the
Board used the word “would” in connection with a
factual finding, where the applicable standard of proof on an applicant is the
balance of probabilities. This is distinguishable from the legal burden of
proof on Mr Geta, which involves the lower standard of more than a mere
possibility of persecution. The Board found that there was insufficient
evidence showing that Mr Geta’s conduct “would be
brought to the attention of Ethiopian authorities or that he would be perceived
to be a person who spoke out against the government”. It went on to find
that Mr Geta had failed to show that there was more than a mere possibility of
persecution. I can see no error on the Board’s part.
[11]
On the issues of delay and the risk to Mr Geta’s
family, the Board’s findings were supported by some evidence. There was some
delay during which Mr Geta risked deportation, and there was some potential risk
to Mr Geta’s family. I note, however, that these conclusions were not, in any
case, central to the Board’s decision.
[12]
With respect to the Board’s “no credible basis” finding, I cannot conclude that
its conclusion was unreasonable. There was little evidence supporting Mr Geta’s
claim (a presentation, attendance at a demonstration, and some monitoring by
Ethiopian authorities). The Board specifically found that there was little
reason to believe that Mr Geta would be perceived as an opponent of the Ethiopian
government. Mr Geta’s identity as an Oromo, on its own, does not provide a
credible basis for the claim on the facts. Therefore, the Board’s conclusion
that there was no credible basis for Mr Geta’s claim was not unreasonable.
III.
Conclusion and Disposition
[13]
The Board based its conclusions on a reasonable
interpretation of the evidence before it, and applied the proper test.
Therefore, its decision represents a defensible outcome based on the facts and
the law. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and
none is stated.
Email this Content