Docket: IMM-5543-15
Citation:
2016 FC 667
Ottawa, Ontario, June 14, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Annis
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
YOSEPH FITWI
GEBRU
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
This is an application for leave and for judicial
review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 of the decision of Senior Immigration Officer
[the Officer], dated September 29, 2015, dismissing the Applicant’s Pre-Removal
Risk Assessment [PRRA] application.
[2]
Before the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] in
2012, the Applicant alleged that he was arrested in Ethiopia because he
participated in a demonstration in June 2005 as a supporter for the Coalition
for Unity and Democracy [CUD] party. He claimed to have been taken to a
detention centre where he was kept for over five months and was questioned,
beaten and tortured. He claimed that he was released with a warning. He
remained in Ethiopia for two years until he left without difficulty traveling
to the United States [U.S.] in February 2007 and then leaving for Canada in
January 2010 after falsely claiming he was divorced and married to a U.S.
citizen.
[3]
Upon his arrival in Canada, he made his first
claim for refugee protection. He alleges fear in returning to Ethiopia arising
from his attendance at the June 2005 demonstration. The claim was rejected by
the RPD in 2012 with strong adverse negative credibility findings regarding the
most pertinent aspects of his narrative. His first PRRA was also dismissed in
July 2014, but overturned on judicial review in June 2015. He updated his file
for the purpose of his second PRRA application, which was rejected in September
2015. In January 2016, his removal was stayed leading to this judicial review
application.
[4]
In this application, the Applicant’s principal
argument is that the Officer erred in rejecting police letters indicating he
was wanted for questioning. The Officer concluded that the letters predated the
RPD decision based upon the 2006 Ethiopian calendar date on the face of the
document, rather than the correct Western calendar date of 2014 as contained in
the translation. The Applicant argues that the PRRA assessment cannot be done
without assessing this crucial evidence.
[5]
Although it appears that the Officer erred in
finding that the police documents predated the RPD hearing, I conclude that in
the context of the RPD decision, there is no reasonable basis to consider that
the documents would have affected the outcome of the decision had it been
before them. A negative refugee
determination by the RPD must be respected by the PRRA officer, unless there is
new evidence of facts that might have affected the outcome of the RPD hearing
if the evidence had been presented to the RPD: Raza v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 at para 13.
[6]
There is no reasonable basis to conclude that
the rejected 2014 police letters would have affected the outcome of the RPD
hearing when the RPD decision was based upon numerous serious negative
credibility failures of the Applicant, most importantly including rejecting
previous police reports as being “nonsensical.”
[7]
The demonstrated lack of credibility of the
Applicant before the RPD includes:
•
Falsely indicating that the Applicant applied
for a U.S. visa based on risk fears, when entry was with one of his children
for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment;
•
Falsely stating that it was his intention to
claim asylum in the U.S. but failing to do so because his brother was supposed
to assist him and did nothing;
•
Falsely misrepresenting himself to U.S.
authorities by participating in a fraudulent marriage to a U.S. citizen; when
found out, claiming his brother made him do everything although actively
participating in the false scheme, including relying upon false documentation
for that purpose;
•
Submitting two police letters allegedly left
with his wife containing directives to a police special surveillance team which
the RPD found to be nonsensical in a letter to the Applicant;
•
Failing to explain how he remained in Ethiopia
for two years before leaving without any difficulty, only to have authorities become
interested in him seven years later in 2012, only after he came to Canada; and
•
Failing to provide medical documentation
corroborating injuries alleged to have sustained while in prison, stating he
did not want to disclose his situation out of fear, so he tolerated his wounds;
this, added to the other evidence regarding his remaining in Ethiopia, led the
RPD to conclude that his account of detention and torture was not credible.
[8]
The mere fact that the evidence postdates a
negative RPD decision does not automatically qualify it for the purposes of a
PRRA, when similar documents were before the RPD. In these circumstances, I find
that the police reports are not significantly different from the information
previously provided and found nonsensical by the RPD. There is also objective
evidence from the RPD decision establishing the Applicant’s willingness to say
anything and to produce false documents in aid of attaining immigration status.
[9]
In the first letter, the author indicates the
Applicant is residing with his family in Addis Ababa, which is incorrect. The
Applicant had not been in Addis Ababa since he left over 10 years ago. The
author also directs the Applicant to “appear for questioning” on January 15,
2014. The letter does not indicate what the questioning relates to, whether or
why the Applicant is a person of interest to the police, whether there is any
threat to his safety by the police or others, or what will happen if he does
not appear for questioning.
[10]
In the second letter, the author notes the
Applicant did not appear for questioning the day prior and requests again that
he appear for questioning or contact the “commission’s
information desk at any time.” Further, the author notes that if the
Applicant does not “comply with this order, you will be
responsible and accountable for any harm that could happen to you or to your
family,” again without explaining why the Applicant has become a person
of interest. The Applicant provided no evidence that the Addis Ababa City
Police Commission took any action subsequent to the issuance of the second
letter.
[11]
With respect to other points raised by the
Applicant, I find no reviewable error in the Officer’s assessment and
conclusion of the insufficiency of evidence that the Applicant was a person of
interest to Ethiopian authorities. This conclusion pertains not only to the
police documents, but also to the Officer’s conclusion to give no weight to a
letter from the President of the Unity for Human Rights and Democracy
organization or to statements from family members, when there is an absence of
evidence about the various capacities or activities the Applicant was said to
have been involved in, or other objective evidence in support.
[12]
Similarly, there is no basis for the Court to
intervene to reject the Officer’s evidence that there has been a significant
change in country conditions concerning risk to the Applicant since the RPD’s decision
or that the Applicant would have come to the attention of Ethiopian authorities
for his attending demonstrations in Canada. The Officer’s decision is
reasonable in concluding that the Applicant did not have the profile of a
person of interest to authorities, when the focus in the documentation was on
opposition leaders and journalists.
[13]
In conclusion, the Officer’s decision meets the
reasonableness requirements of justification, transparency and intelligibility
within the decision making process and as a decision falling within a range of
possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and
the law: Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at paras 47‑50.
[14]
Accordingly, the application is dismissed. There
are no questions for certification.
Email this Content