Docket: IMM-965-17
Citation:
2017 FC 800
Toronto, Ontario, September 11, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ZEBIDERU GENENE ASFEW
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Overview
[1]
This is a judicial review of a decision by the Refugee
Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, dated February
3, 2017 and conveyed by Notice of Decision dated February 9, 2017, confirming
the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] decision determining that the Applicant is
not a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], nor a person in need of protection
pursuant to s. 97 of IRPA.
[2]
As explained in greater detail below, this
application is dismissed, because the Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate
that the RAD’s decision is unreasonable.
Background
[3]
The Applicant, Ms. Zebideru Genene Asfew, is a
citizen of Ethiopia who claims fear of persecution due to her political
activities and those of her family in Ethiopia and her political activities
following her arrival in Canada. She alleges that she was a supporter of the
Semayawi or “Blue” party in Ethiopia and that in April 2015 she was arrested
and detained for one day after participating in a rally that resulted in a
confrontation with government authorities. She also alleges that she has been
denied contracts for her business, because she is not a supporter of the
government, and claims fear of persecution because her husband and brother are
members of the Blue party, and her husband has been arrested on several
occasions.
[4]
Ms. Asfew also asserts a sur place claim.
After arriving in Canada, she became a member of Unity for Democracy and Human
Rights Toronto, a non-governmental organization which opposes human rights
violations by the Ethiopian government. Her participation in this
organization’s activities was recorded on social media, and she alleges fear of
her activities in Canada coming to the attention of Ethiopian authorities.
[5]
Ms. Asfew’s claim was initially heard by the RPD
on February 18, 2016 but, because of interpretation issues, was the subject of
a de novo hearing on August 22, 2016. The RPD rejected her claim in a
decision dated September 12, 2016, finding that Ms. Asfew was not credible and
did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. She appealed this decision to
the RAD, arguing that the RPD erred in its assessment of her credibility and in
its assessment of her sur place claim. The RAD admitted new evidence on
appeal, largely updating the conditions in Ethiopia following the declaration
of a state of emergency in 2016, but found that Ms. Asfew had not provided
sufficient trustworthy, credible evidence to demonstrate that her stated fear
of persecution was well-founded. The RAD therefore confirmed the decision of
the RPD.
Issues and Standard of Review
[6]
The Applicant articulates the issues for the
Court’s consideration as follows:
A. Whether the RAD erred in assessing the Applicant’s sur place
claim;
B. Whether the RAD erred in deciding that the Applicant lacked the
targeted political profile in Ethiopia, specifically in view of the declaration
of a state of emergency in 2016; and
C.
Whether the RAD credibility finding was
reasonable.
[7]
The parties agree, and I concur, that these
issues are reviewable by the Court on a standard of reasonableness.
Analysis
Whether the RAD erred in
assessing the Applicant’s sur place claim
[8]
Ms. Asfew notes that the RAD accepted that she
had participated in a number of meetings and rallies in Canada where there had
been a presence of opposition politicians from Ethiopia and/or placards with
messages critical of the Ethiopian government. As such, the RAD stated that the
question for it to consider was whether these activities had been seen by
Ethiopian authorities or their agents and, if so, whether the circumstances of
those activity supported a well-founded fear of prosecution.
[9]
Ms. Asfew also notes that the RAD accepted from
the country condition documentation that Ethiopian authorities monitor
individuals in the Ethiopian diaspora and that there was currently a
restrictive climate regarding any outward show of dissent following the declaration
of the state of emergency in October 2016. However, she takes issue with the
RAD’s conclusion that Ethiopian authorities cannot possibly have the resources
to monitor everyone who takes part in small demonstrations or protests, of the
sort reflected in the photographs Ms. Asfew submitted, and the RAD’s conclusion
that, even in if any of her activities were actually monitored by agents of the
government, she has such a small profile that she would not likely be on the
radar of the Ethiopian government or targeted upon returning to Ethiopia. Ms.
Asfew argues that these conclusions were speculative and contradicted by the
country condition evidence, which she states establishes that Ethiopian
authorities target all dissidents en masse.
[10]
When asked to identify the documentary evidence
upon which she relies to support this argument, Ms. Asfew’s counsel referred
the Court to particular portions of the Ethiopia 2015 Human Rights Report of
the United States Department of State [the USDOS Report]. This report refers to
the Ethiopian government refusing to permit international human rights
organizations to have access to political or other prisoners, as well as to
reports of individuals being held in unofficial detention centres throughout
the country. Under the heading of Freedom of Speech and Expression, the USDOS
Report notes that authorities arrested and harassed persons for criticizing the
government, that NGOs have reported cases of torture of such individuals, and
that the government has detained journalists and opposition activists and
monitored and interfered with the activities of political opposition groups.
There is also a description of the Ethiopian government’s restriction of access
to certain content on the Internet and use of surveillance software to monitor
the online activities of Ethiopians living abroad. Ms. Asfew also emphasized
that the USDOS Report was published before the declaration of the state of
emergency in 2016.
[11]
While is no there is no question that these
portions of the documentary evidence establish that the Ethiopian government
targets political dissidents, I find that they do not support Ms. Asfew’s
proposition that the government has the capability and the practice of
monitoring and targeting all individuals who have any involvement in political
dissent. As noted by the Respondent, one portion of the USDOS Report speaks in
particular to fears of probable detention of journalists, editors and
publishers. Ms. Asfew’s counsel also drew the Court’s attention to a Response
to Information Request which identified a letter from the Ethiopian government’s
Director of Diaspora Ethiopian Affairs to Ethiopian embassies, referring to presenting
a list of coordinators of extremist opposition groups operating in the
diaspora. This evidence supports, rather than contradicts, the RAD’s conclusion
that someone with the minimal political profile the RAD found Ms. Asfew to have
would not be targeted by Ethiopian authorities. I therefore find this aspect of
the RAD’s decision to be reasonable and that Ms. Asfew has not identified a
reviewable error on the part of the tribunal.
Whether the RAD erred in deciding that the Applicant
lacked the targeted political profile Ethiopia, specifically in view of the
declaration of emergency on October 8, 2016
[12]
Ms. Asfew’s argument on this issue is that the
RAD focused unduly on the evidence of past persecution of her or her family and
did not recognize that, as a family member of a political dissident with her
own participation in political activities, she fit a profile of the sort of
person that the documentary evidence established was at risk of persecution by
the Ethiopian government. She notes the RAD’s reference to the statement in the
documentary evidence that Ethiopian authorities target families of suspects,
detaining and interrogating them. She submits that the RAD accepted that she
was the wife of a dissident who had been arrested in the past, that her house
had been demolished because of her and her husband’s political views, and that
she had participated in one demonstration in Ethiopia and had been detained as
a result.
[13]
However, as argued by the Respondent, Ms.
Asfew’s submissions in this respect overstate the RAD’s conclusions. The
decision demonstrates that the RAD had credibility concerns surrounding the
evidence of both Ms. Asfew and her husband. It cannot be read as accepting the
assertions as to either the destruction of the house or the husband’s political
activities. Again, I find the RAD’s decision reasonable and that Ms. Asfew has
not demonstrated a reviewable error.
Whether the RAD credibility
finding was reasonable
[14]
The RAD made an adverse credibility finding,
because Ms. Asfew amended her Basis of Claim [BOC] form to add that she had
been assisted by her uncle in passing through security clearance at the airport
in Ethiopia. The RPD had drawn a negative inference from her failure to include
in her original BOC that she required assistance to pass through security
clearance and exit the country. The RAD found that Ms. Asfew’s exit through the
airport was relevant to her claim that she is at risk in returning to Ethiopia
and that the omission of this information from her first BOC was significant
and relevant. The RAD rejected her explanation that she omitted the information
from the original BOC because she had been stressed, given that the amendment
was not made until months following her first hearing date, and it agreed with
the RPD that the omission supported a negative inference with respect to her
credibility.
[15]
Ms. Asfew argues that the RAD erred in reaching
this conclusion on the basis that she submitted contradictory evidence. She
submits that the RAD rejected her evidence because it was contradicted by an expert
opinion she submitted, which stated that only high-level or well-known
opposition leaders are prevented from leaving the country, and that this was an
error because this opinion was not itself accepted. I find no merit to this
submission. The RAD noted the RPD’s rejection of the expert opinion as unsupported
by any identity documents and inconsistent with a Response to Information
Request. However, the RAD did not rely on this analysis in reaching its own
credibility determination. Nor did it reach a conclusion based on
contradictions in the evidence. Rather, the RAD drew a negative inference as a
result of Ms. Asfew’s omission from her original BOC of any reference to her
uncle’s assistance with her departure from Ethiopia and her failure to provide
an acceptable explanation for the omission.
[16]
Ms. Asfew also takes issue with the RAD
impugning her credibility because she did not state that she made anti-government
comments at the time of the protest which resulted in her detention. She notes
that the RAD failed to indicate whether she was asked by the RPD whether she
made anti-government comments, and she submits that her credibility cannot be
impugned based on a question that was never asked. Again, I find no merit to
this submission. The RAD engaged in an analysis as to whether her detention at
the protest supported a conclusion that she was a serious opponent of the
government, and in that context it noted that she did not state she made
anti-government comments. However, the RAD made no credibility findings as a
result of this point.
[17]
Having found no reviewable errors in the RAD’s
decision, the decision is reasonable, and this application for judicial review
must be dismissed. Neither party proposed any question for certification for
appeal, and none is stated.
Email this Content