Docket: IMM-5284-24
Citation: 2025 FC 466
Ottawa, Ontario, March 13, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Gagné
BETWEEN: |
MODNER TOUSSAINT |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Background
[1] Mr. Modner Toussaint is a Haitian citizen who came to Canada via the United States of America and claimed refugee protection based on political opinion and activities. He claims that his involvement in Haitian politics with the Parti Démocrate Institutionnaliste (PDI) and the Collectif des Citoyens contre l’Impunité et la Corruption (COCCIC) made him a target of politically motivated violence.
[2] The Applicant claims he feared for his life following three main events where he felt threatened:
1. On October 7, 2021, the Applicant organized a sit-in in front of the Ministry of Justice with the PDI to demand justice for Jovenel Moïse, who was assassinated three months prior. Individuals claiming to be part of a rival political party, the Secteur Démocratique et Populaire, appeared and began stoning the participants;
2. On November 23, 2021, he received a phone call with death threats from an unknown individual; and
3. On November 26, 2021, the Applicant’s cousin was allegedly assassinated after having received similar death threats.
[3] The Refugee Protection Division [RPD] dismissed the Applicant’s claim having found his political involvement insufficient to attract the attention of the alleged persecutors. The RPD also raised some credibility concerns.
[4] Since the Applicant entered Canada pursuant to the terms of the Safe Third Country Agreement, he had no right to appeal the RPD’s decision to the Refugee Appeal Division and seeks judicial review of the RPD’s decision before this Court.
II. Issues and Standard of Review
[5] This application for judicial review raises the following issues:
Is the Applicant’s political profile sufficient to find that he is a Convention refugee considering the political climate in Haiti?
Did the RPD err in its assessment of the Applicant’s supporting letters?
Did the RPD err in considering the port of entry notes in its assessment of the Applicant’s credibility?
[6] It is undisputed that the applicable standard of review is that of reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65).
III. Analysis
A. The Applicant’s profile
[7] The Applicant argues that the RPD’s decision does not consider his full history of political activities. In particular, the RPD does not mention the Applicant’s statement that he ran, unsuccessfully, in the 2010 general election with the Mouvement Indépendant pour la Réconciliation Nationale (MRIN) party. The Applicant asserts that his campaigning made him a person that was visible in the community, increasing the risk to be exposed to persecution by the opposing party.
[8] Although it is true that the RPD only references the Applicant’s 2010 campaign while discussing his involvement in the COCCIC at paragraph 13 of the decision, the Applicant does not link his political campaign for election to the persecution and threat he received and currently faces in Haiti. It is unclear how his unsuccessful 2010 campaign would expose him to threats of violence in 2021.
[9] The RPD found that there was insufficient evidence to determine that the PDI party was active enough in Haiti at the time of the alleged events which motivated the Applicant’s flight to Canada. The Applicant argues that the RPD engaged in speculation, as there was no evidence which contradicted the Applicant’s sworn statement as to the PDI’s activities. At the hearing, counsel for the Applicant argued that the RPD erred in considering the PDI’s lack of online activities to evaluate the PDI’s current activities, as Internet access in Haiti is limited.
[10] However, the RPD did not deny the existence of the PDI altogether, only evaluated the risk that the Applicant would be exposed by being involved in a little-known political organization with very little public activity in recent years. Further, the RPD relied on the Applicant’s evidence, which consisted of printouts from the PDI’s Facebook page, to help determine the level of activity of the PDI in recent years. In my view, the RPD’s decision appropriately examines the known activities of the PDI in weighing the level of risk to the Applicant.
[11] The RPD also questioned the Applicant’s role within the PDI, as he claimed that his role involved communications with media, considering there is an absence of any evidence that the Applicant’s words or image appeared in media publications. The RPD found that the Applicant’s role was that of a regular member or supporter and that his position within this organization did not rise to the level of notoriety that would increase his risk of political persecution. Similarly, the RPD found that the Applicant did not have a sufficiently high profile within the COCCIC to significantly increase his risk of persecution. Considering the evidence, I see no error in the RPD’s findings. The RPD reasonably weighted the Applicant’s testimony and found that he would not be at risk of political persecution in Haiti.
B. The letters from family members
[12] The RPD gave little weight to letters from the Applicant’s family members which attempted to corroborate some material facts of the Applicant’s claim with respect to the threats he received. The RPD found that they constituted self-serving evidence in the form of unsworn statements about facts which were not within the direct knowledge of the writers.
[13] The Applicant argues it was an error for the RDP to consider the letters as being self-serving evidence. He asserts that these letters could be used to corroborate the threat received and that it was obvious there would be no direct witnesses to a private call.
[14] Yet, the Applicant does not explain why the RPD should have given more weight to letters from individuals who have no direct knowledge of the relevant facts. Whether or not the letters constitute self-serving evidence, their probative value as evidence is minimal because of the lack of direct personal knowledge of the threatening phone call. It was therefore open to the RPD to give little weight to the Applicant’s family’s letters.
C. The port of entry notes
[15] The Applicant was interviewed by an agent from the Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] upon his arrival in Canada, four days after having fled Haiti. The Applicant then stated he left his employment because he did not earn enough money to support his family. He added that he loved Canada, a country where human rights are respected.
[16] The RPD considered the Applicant’s statements and rejected his explanation that inconsistencies between them and his refugee claim were caused by a misunderstanding due to the dialect of French that was used to question him. The RPD determined that it was reasonable to give some weight to the Applicant’s initial interview as he acknowledged that he is proficient in French, namely because he spent years as a French language teacher in Haiti, and he repeatedly testified that he understood the questions that were put to him. I see no error in the RPD’s findings, and I disagree with counsel that there are multiple French dialects in Canada, which would cause a French-speaking CBSA agent and a Haitian fluent in French to be unable to communicate and understand each other.
[17] The RPD agreed that there were good reasons to be cautious when relying on statements made by asylum claimants on entry to Canada. However, the RPD found that although not determinative in themselves, the Applicant’s statements contribute to a finding that the alleged risks do not exist for him in his country, and that they were likely the reason for his decision to flee his country and come to Canada.
[18] The Applicant maintains that it was always his intention to seek refugee protection based on his political opinions, and that the initial statement to the CBSA should not have been relied upon to impugn his credibility. The Applicant cites the decision of this Court in Cetinkaya v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 8 at paragraph 51, where the Court found that :
[51] It is an error of the RPD to impugn the credibility of the Applicant on the sole ground that the information provided by the Applicant at the POE interview lacks details. The purpose of the POE interview is to assess whether an individual is eligible and/or admissible to initiate a refugee claim. It is not a part of the claim itself and, consequently, it should not be expected to contain all of the details of the claim.
[References omitted.]
[19] However, the RPD did not impugn the credibility of the Applicant solely based on the interview with the CBSA upon entering Canada or based on the fact that it lacked detail on the alleged risk in his country. The RPD considered the initial statement against the Applicant’s testimony at the hearing to make determinations about inconsistencies in the Applicant’s narrative.
[20] I am of the view that the RPD did not make an error in weighing the Applicant’s statement to the CBSA’s agent in context together with the remainder of his claim to assess the risk of political persecution faced by the Applicant in his country.
IV. Conclusions
For the reasons above, I see no reason to interfere with the RPD’s decision and the application for judicial review is dismissed. The RPD was reasonable in its analysis and finding that the Applicant has not sufficiently established that he risks political persecution in his country to support his refugee claim. The parties have proposed no question of general importance for certification and no such question arises from the fact of this case.
Email this Content