Date: 20170125

Docket: IMM-2873-16

Citation: 2017 FC 92

[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

Montréal, Quebec, January 25, 2017

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I.                    Nature of the case

[1]               This is an application for judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c. 27 [IRPA] against a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration Review Board of Canada, dated June 14, 2016, under subsection 111(1) of the IRPA, to dismiss the applicant’s appeal and to affirm the decision by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] on August 14, 2015, according to which the applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

II.                 Facts

[2]               The applicant, who is 33 years old, is a citizen of Côte d’Ivoire. He has a spouse, a 12-year-old daughter, and a six-year-old son in Côte d’Ivoire. He arrived in Canada with a dance troupe on May 28, 2015 and claimed refugee status a few days later.

[3]               According to his account, the applicant was allegedly affiliated with an opposition party, the Ivorian Popular Front [Front populaire ivoirien; FPI] and in 2010 and 2011, he was allegedly an activist to increase awareness among the youths in his neighbourhood. With the ascent to power of the Rally of the Republicans [Rassemblement des républicains; RDR] party, FPI activists were the target of persecution by the Republican Forces of Côte d’Ivoire [Forces républicaines de Côte d’Ivoire; FRCI]. The applicant reportedly went into hiding in Ghana from April to September 2011 and reportedly returned to Côte d’Ivoire after the political situation calmed down.

[4]               With the approach of presidential elections in Côte d’Ivoire in October 2015, violence committed by the forces of the party in power (RDR) against opposition party activists (FPI) resumed. The applicant alleges that he began to fear for his life in March 2015 and contacted a smuggler in order to flee Côte d’Ivoire. On May 10, 2015, while not at his residence, the FRCI allegedly arrived at his residence and, after not finding him, ransacked the premises.

[5]               The applicant then reportedly hid at a friend’s place in another neighbourhood in town until the smuggler organized his departure for Canada on May 28, 2015. In the meantime, on May 15, 2015, the FRCI reportedly arrived at his residence a second time, again looking for him, and after not finding him, allegedly mistreated members of his family. The applicant allegedly only gained knowledge of that incident around June 20, 2015, after the filing of his Basis of Claim [BOC] Form.

III.               Decision

A.                 RPD decision from August 14, 2015

[6]               On August 14, 2015, the RPD denied the applicant’s refugee claim, judging it not to be credible. The panel reproached the numerous omissions and contradictions in the account in the BOC and the applicant’s testimony. He alleges that on March 5, 2015, he had started making arrangements with a smuggler to leave Côte d’Ivoire when, in a Canadian visa application, he was presented with an invitation letter from March 2, 2015, to participate in a festival being held in Québec City. In addition, the RPD found that the events from May 10 and 15, 2015 were not credible, considering that the applicant had no knowledge of them and that the submitted documents were not reliable. The complaint from the applicant’s spouse bears the curious date of June 31, 2015, and did not match the submitted medical certificate regarding the duration of his temporary inability to work. The RPD then notes noted that the applicant is identified as a student on his FPI membership card, while he finished his studies in 2006; as a result, it did not give any probative value to that card. Lastly, the applicant reported to an officer of the Canada Border Services Agency that he did not know the other members of the dance troupe with whom he travelled to Canada, but was in close contact with them on social media. In addition, since the evidence showed that the applicant openly displayed his activities on social media, the RPD found that the applicant’s behaviour was not compatible with that of a refugee claimant who is afraid for his life. Moreover, the RPD rejected the evidence that came from the Ivorian press, considering that past articles from that same media regarding the applicant had been fabricated in order to facilitate him obtaining a visa. In the same way, the RPD rejected the documents submitted by the applicant, considering the ease of obtaining falsified documents.

[7]               Last, alternatively, the RPD found that there was no prospective risk for the applicant if he were to return to Côte d’Ivoire, considering his limited political profile and the absence of proof of political persecution against FPI activists simply due to their membership in this party.

B.                 RAD decision from June 14, 2016

[8]               On June 14, 2016, the RAD dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the RPD’s decision, according to which the applicant was neither a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.

[9]               Under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, the RAD refused to admit certain documents that were submitted by the applicant as new evidence. In this instance, a newspaper article detailing circumstances and a situation that were different from those of the applicant was rejected. Other documents — press clippings — were admitted, but did not prove to be sufficient to justify holding a hearing before the RAD under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA.

[10]           After a review of the RPD’s decision, listening to the recording of the hearing, and an analysis of all evidence on record, the RAD affirmed the RPD’s findings as to the applicant’s absence of credibility. Firstly, the RAD found that there was a contradiction in the applicant’s testimony as to the start of his contacts with the smuggler and his explanations were not reasonable. Then, given the omissions, contradictions and implausibilities regarding two incidents that allegedly occurred on May 10 and 15, 2015, the RAD found that it was reasonable for the RPD to have given no probative value to the elements involving this part of the applicant’s account. Lastly, the RAD found that the review by the RPD of Ivorian press articles and documents submitted by the applicant to obtain a Canadian visa was reasonable, considering how easy it is to fabricate false news and false documents. However, the RAD found that the RPD had made a non-determining error by giving no probative value to the applicant’s FPI membership card.

[11]           After reviewing the documentary evidence and the evidence that was available before the RPD, the RAD found that he did not establish that he was personally subject to a danger of torture, a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment if he were to return to Côte d’Ivoire. As a result, the RAD upheld the RPD’s decision.

IV.              Submissions by the parties

A.                 Applicant’s claims

[12]           The applicant also reproaches the RAD for erring by not admitting certain new evidence, rejecting newspaper articles that showed that opposition party activities were being violently repressed by the party in power. According to the applicant, although the depicted situations were different than what he experienced, those articles nevertheless show the violence that was suffered by FPI activists, who were persecuted regardless of their profile or position in their party.

[13]           The applicant claims that the RAD’s decision to affirm the RPD’s findings as to his credibility is unreasonable. According to him, the RAD erred by finding that the error made by the RPD, in which no probative value was given to his FPI membership card, was not determining. His involvement in the FPI was allegedly crucial to explaining his hear and his decision to leave the country. Furthermore, the RAD allegedly did not give enough weight to the applicant’s explanations regarding on the one hand, the dates of contact with the smuggler and his visa efforts, and on the other hand, the anomalies regarding events that allegedly occurred in May 2015. Lastly, it found that the facts reported by the newspaper Le Bélier were false news, with no evidence.

[14]           As for the prospective risk encountered, the applicant reproached the RAD for its findings that were contrary to the objective documentation on Côte d’Ivoire. He argued that PRI activists, including him, were personally targeted and persecuted by the Ivorian forces linked to the party in power.

B.                 Respondent’s claims

[15]           The respondent alleges that the RAD correctly decided not to admit certain documents as new evidence due to their lack of relevance, according to the criteria established in Raza v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 [Raza]. In addition, the new evidence admitted by the RAD did not warrant holding a hearing, since they were insufficient to show that the applicant would be exposed to a personal risk if he were to return to Côte d’Ivoire and that they were therefore unlikely to justify his refugee claim being allowed.

[16]           The respondent claims that the RAD was at liberty to reject the applicant’s unsatisfactory explanations as to the start of his contacts with the smuggler and the events that allegedly occurred in May 2015, given the contradictions in his testimony. It was also reasonable for the RAD to doubt the authenticity of the articles from Le Bélier and give them no probative value. Although, unlike the RPD, the RAD found that probative value can be given to the applicant’s FPI membership card, the RAD was justified in finding that this error was not determining.

[17]           The respondent puts forward that after reviewing the objective documentary evidence, it was reasonable for the RAD to decide that the applicant did not have the profile of the people and circumstances portrayed in the evidence and that he was not personally at risk in Côte d’Ivoire.

V.                 Issues

[18]           The issues in this case are as follows:

1)      Did the RAD err in fact and in law by refusing certain new evidence?

2)      Did the RAD err in fact in its interpretation of the applicant’s credibility?

3)      Did the RAD err in fact and in law by finding that there was no prospective risk for the applicant?

[19]           The RAD’s interpretation of the provisions of the IRPA as to the admissibility of new evidence is subject to reasonableness (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Singh, 2016 FCA 96 [Singh]).

[20]           The assessment of the applicant’s credibility by specialized administrative tribunals is subject to reasonableness and commands some deference from the Court (Mugesera v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40 [Mugesera]).

[21]           The RAD’s findings regarding the absence of a prospective risk are also subject to reasonableness.

VI.              Relevant provisions

[22]           Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA specifies the following:

VII.            Analysis

[23]           For the following reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

A.                 Did the RAD err in fact and in law by refusing certain new evidence?

[24]           The Act specifies that an applicant can submit new evidence according to certain criteria, one of them being relevance (Singh and Raza, above). However, in this case, the RAD determined that the articles from Ivoirebusiness did not depict circumstances that were similar to those experienced by the applicant and they were not useful. Therefore, it was reasonable for the RAD to exclude them.

B.                 Did the RAD err in fact in its assessment of the applicant’s credibility?

[25]           Our Court has reiterated many times the duty of showing deference to specialized administrative tribunals that have the possibility of directly assessing the credibility of refugee claimants (Mugesera, above).

[26]           The Court finds that the RAD was reasonable to find that the applicant lacked credibility. It affirmed the RPD’s decision, in turn making unfavourable inferences from the contradictions and omissions in the applicant’s testimony. The omissions, contradictions, and inconsistencies reported by the RAD warranted the stated findings. The RAD conducted a careful and complete analysis and clearly justified its reasoning. The RAD’s decision is an acceptable and rational solution that falls within the range of possible outcomes (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, 2008 SCC 9).

C.                 Did the RAD err in fact and in law by finding that there was no prospective risk for the applicant?

[27]           The Court cannot adhere to the applicant’s arguments as to the prospective risk encountered. Although the documentary evidence shows acts of violence committed against FPI activists, it was reasonable for the RAD to find that the applicant was not personally at risk in Côte d’Ivoire, considering that according to the evidence, his profile did not match that of the circumstances or the persecuted persons. The applicant did not present sufficient arguments to warrant this Court’s intervention.

VIII.         Conclusion

[28]           The application for judicial review is dismissed.

JUDGMENT

THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review be dismissed. There are no questions of importance to certify.

“Michel M.J. Shore”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: