Docket: IMM-2385-17
Citation: 2017 FC 1195
Ottawa, Ontario, December 28, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
YESHIHAREG
ALEMU MENGESHA
DINAH HAILU
KEBEDE AND
NAZAWIT KEBEDE
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Yeshihareg Alemu Mengesha [the Applicant] and
her minor children Dinah Hailu Kebede and Nazrawit Hailu Kebede are citizens of
Ethiopia. The Applicant worked as an Executive Secretary for the Lesotho
Embassy in Addis Abada from 2009-2012.
[2]
She alleges that in April 2012 she was asked by
Ethiopian security officials to retrieve information from the Embassy regarding
individuals who had alleged links to the Ginbot 7 party. The Ginbot 7 party is
an opposition group based in Eritrea. The Applicant denied having the
knowledge or ability to obtain this information, and was subsequently detained
by security forces for one night.
[3]
The Applicant fled to the United States of
America with her children in August 2012, where they made an asylum claim six months
later. In August 2013, before their claim was heard, the Applicant and her
children returned to Ethiopia, after her husband bribed an Ethiopian security
official who provided assurances of her safety.
[4]
The Applicant alleges that since her return she
has been harassed by security officials for information they believe she has as
a result of her former employment. In 2014 the Applicant travelled to Dubai on
a business matter. In 2015 the Applicant travelled to Bangkok seeking treatment
for her sick husband.
[5]
In May 25, 2016, the Applicant was taken to a
police station and asked to identify individuals from photographs provided by
the police. When she was unable to identify the individuals, she was
threatened and accused of having association with the Blue Party (an opposition
party also referred to as the Semayawi party) and collaborating with Ginbot 7.
The Applicant testifies that in fear for her life and safety she began to plan
to flee from the country, and thus applied for and secured Canadian Visas for
herself and the minor Applicants.
[6]
The Applicant was once again brought to the
police station in June 20, 2016. The Police demanded that she read a statement
prepared by security agents on national television. She was taken to the TV
station and shown how to read the statement. She was told she must read out
the statement when the program was ready. The Applicant agreed to do so
because she knew she would be fleeing to Canada shortly.
[7]
The Applicant arrived in Canada on July 7,
2016. She learned from her husband that the police came to her home looking
for her on July 14, 2016 and July 16, 2016, and that she was sent a letter from
the Foreign Minister asking her to appear at the nearest Embassy to sign a
witness statement.
[8]
She filed an application for refugee protection
based on her imputed political opinion, her lack of cooperation with the
authorities, and her support for the Blue Party. The Refugee Protection Division
[RPD] dismissed her claim. It had numerous credibility concerns regarding the evidence
she proffered in support of her allegations that she is being pursued by the
Ethiopian authorities. It further found that she had failed to establish that
she was an active supporter of the Blue Party, or was being pursued because of
her support for it.
[9]
An appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD]
was dismissed. The RAD stated that “after conducting
an independent assessment of the entire record of the proceedings, the RAD
agrees with the RPD that the Applicant and her children have not established
the material allegations in their claims.”
[10]
The Applicants asks the Court to set aside the
decision of the RAD on two bases: (1) that its rejection of documentary
evidence that corroborates her claim was unreasonable, and (2) it erred in its
assessment of her credibility.
[11]
For the following reasons, I am not persuaded
that the RAD made any error or unreasonable finding and thus the application
must be dismissed.
[12]
Having read both the RPD and the RAD decisions,
I confess that I find the RPD decision better reasoned and more persuasive.
However, it is the RAD decision that is under review and my preference for the
RPD decision does not mean that the RAD decision is deficient or ought to be
set aside. Although the RAD’s view of some of the evidence differed from that
of the RPD, I find nothing unreasonable in the outcome or analysis of the RAD.
[13]
The Applicant complains of the RAD’s treatment
of three documents: (a) the Police letters dated May 25, 2016 and July 16,
2016; (b) the Letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and (c) the Letter
from the Applicant’s husband.
[14]
The Applicant submits that the RAD’s decision to
grant the two Police letters little weight was unreasonable. She says that the
RAD gave no weight to the May 25, 2016 letter because the letterhead is cut off
at the top and because it does not name the Applicant, and gave no weight to
the July 16, 2016 letter solely because the letterhead was cut off at the
time. The Applicant submits that the RAD did not have sufficient evidence
before it to decide to give no weight to these letters. She notes that the RAD
did not state it had a specialized knowledge of the features of police letters
from Ethiopia, nor did they have a sample of police summons or letters to compare
with those the Applicant submitted. The Applicant submits that while the RAD
is an expert in weighing evidence concerning the authenticity of documents, it
is not an expert in the authenticity of documents per se.
[15]
I agree with the Respondent that the RAD’s
concerns regarding the May 25, 2016 letter was reasonable and it provided an
acceptable explanation for granting the letter little weight. The RAD had no
way of confirming that the letter was intended for the Applicant because it did
not name her. It thus reasonably afforded it low probative value.
[16]
I also agree with the Respondent that it was not
unreasonable for the RAD to also give little weight to the July 16, 2016 letter
because the very top of the letterhead was cut off. The RPD discounted this
evidence for two reasons. The letter in question was a summons that the
husband stated had been left with him on July 16th. When the
Applicant was asked if the officials left anything with her husband she twice
responded that they did not, before being informed by the panel that such a
letter was in the record. She then testified that “it
was a notice and that they do not come without a notice.” The RPD
stated that it found this explanation to be unreasonable “because the panel asked a direct question on more than one
occasion regarding whether or not the security agents left any documentation
with her husband and on two occasions she indicated that they did not.”
It continued, “In addition to the claimant’s failure to
mention this highly relevant document, on the face of it, the letterhead is cut
off at the top.” These together led the RPD to give it no weight to
corroborating her allegations that she was actively being pursued.
[17]
The RAD found that the RPD was “overzealous in its finding that the Appellant did not
mention the summons, when it was submitted in evidence.” Nonetheless it
also found that it could not be assigned “much
probative value on its face, given that the letterhead was cut off.”
There is no real dispute that the letterhead was cut off. The document was
thus not complete. Despite its legible portions, it cannot be said to be
unreasonable to discount its value when it is incomplete and one has no way of
knowing what has been removed from it.
[18]
The second document that was discounted was the
letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Applicant submits that the
only reason the RAD provided for discounting the letter was because of its lack
of identifying features. The Applicant submits a “lack
of identifying features” is a very vague term, especially as the letter
has a letterhead, was signed and stamped, and appears authentic on its face.
[19]
The Respondent submits the RAD’s statement was
not vague. At paragraph 27 of its reasons the RAD wrote: “In the absence of the Appellant’s name, her address or where
the letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was sent, coupled with the
aforementioned credibility concerns, the RPD found, on a balance of
probabilities, that this letter did not provide any additional credible
corroborating evidence.”
[20]
In fact, the letter does contain the Applicant’s
name – a fact noted by the RPD. The RPD’s reasons for discounting the letter
were as follows:
[I]t indicates that she is to go to a
Consulate or embassy where she resides to sign a witness statement. While it
indicates the claimant’s name, it does not contain her address or to where the
letter was sent. Given the aforementioned credibility concerns noted with
respect to the claimant’s testimony, the panel finds, on a balance of
probabilities, the letter does not overcome or outweigh the numerous
credibility concerns already stated.
[21]
In short, the only difference between the RAD
and RPD decisions on this point appears to rest on the Applicant being named in
the letter. In my view, that error on the part of the RAD is not sufficient to
overcome the reasonableness of the assessment otherwise.
[22]
The third document addressed by both boards is a
letter from the Applicant’s husband.
[23]
The Applicant submits that the RAD gave no
weight to the letter from her husband because it was self-serving and added
nothing to what was already in the testimony and Basis of Claim form. The
Applicant submits that this finding misses the point of the husband’s letter,
which was not to add new facts into evidence, but rather to corroborate the
Applicant’s allegations of persecution. The Applicant submits that letters
must be considered for what they say, not what they do not say.
[24]
Regarding this letter, the RAD stated:
With due respect, the RAD finds that the
[Applicant] has lost sight of what is missing in the letter from the
[Applicant’s] husband. The RAD finds that with this in mind, this letter ought
to be given minimal, if any, weight in terms of establishing fears on behalf of
the family, including future fears to the children.
[25]
What the letter failed to state, and which was
testified to by the Applicant, was that the husband had been required to
relocate numerous times since the Applicant had fled Ethiopia because of his
fears of the authorities. The RPD and RAD reasonably found that it would
expect the husband to mention this critical fact in his letter. In my view,
the absence of any mention of that fact reasonably reduces to near zero the
weight to be given to this letter.
[26]
I also find that the overall credibility of the
Applicant was assessed reasonably. She purported to travel to the United
States to escape persecution, but failed to file an asylum claim for six months.
She travelled outside and returned to Ethiopia at least twice with no
consequences. She purported to be an active supporter of the Blue Party, but
had no knowledge of its ideology, platform, or of when the last election
occurred.
[27]
The Applicant relies on a letter from the Blue
Party and receipts for donations she made to it as further corroborating
evidence. In my view, the contradictions between the letter and the Applicant’s
testimony as to how she supported the party were sufficient to justify the RAD
giving it little weight. Further, the contradictions in her testimony as a
whole, as noted in the preceding paragraph, were significant enough that the
receipts were insufficient to establish her claim to be a supporter of the
party.
[28]
These difficulties with her testimony coupled
with the lack of strong corroborating evidence of her claim, renders the RAD’s
overall decision reasonable.
[29]
No question for certification was proposed.
Email this Content