Date: 20030520
Docket: IMM-4478-02
Citation: 2003 FCT 632
BETWEEN:
GABRIEL OSEI BOATENG,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
[1] The applicant is a 29 year old Christian evangelist from Ghana. He claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution as a result of his religion and political opinion. He fears persecution by certain Ghanian citizens and families, Ghanian youth, Muslims and the police. He also claims to be a person in need of protection in that he is a person in danger of being tortured or at risk of losing his life or of being subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. On August 29, 2002, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. He seeks judicial review of that decision.
[2] In his personal information form (PIF) narrative, the applicant claims to have been an evangelist for 10 to 11 years. He is allegedly well known and has given many prophecies. One prophecy, in particular, is significant with respect to his claim. He states that in February, 2001, after a period of fasting and prayer, he had a vision following which he preached a message of warning to the people of Accra and Kumasi that a disastrous event would involve the two cities. After preaching about his vision, he and his family were threatened and attacked by non-Christians who perceived the prophecy as a bad omen. The applicant states that his prophecy came true when a riot at a soccer match resulted in the deaths of 126 Kumasi and Accra citizens. He claims that after this tragedy, countless attempts were made on his life, one of his cars was burned and some elders of his ministry were injured. The PIF states that although the applicant went to the police, he had many enemies among them and they would not help him because he had frequently preached against corruption and bribery. They made no attempt to investigate because he did not have any named suspects. The applicant cancelled his scheduled programs and went into hiding. He left Ghana in June, 2001, and came to Canada by way of the Ivory Coast.
[3] The first group feared by the applicant is comprised of those who felt his prophecy was a bad omen and allegedly persecuted him after the stampede at the soccer match. The second group consists of certain Ghanian youth who, because of his preachings against fornication, drug addiction and the risk of AIDS, insulted and pressured him. The third group feared is the Muslims. The applicant testified that the Muslims became enraged when they heard him preach that Jesus is the only way. It was primarily Muslims who lost family members during the soccer incident and most of the spectators and players were Muslims. The applicant claims that the Muslims came and tried to kill him following the event. The fourth group, the police, are feared because he preached against corruption and bribery. The police, he said, believed that it was his prophetic word that caused them to use tear gas at the soccer incident.
[4] The RPD found that the applicant had established his personal identity and it accepted that he is an evangelist who carried out crusades in various parts of Ghana. It concluded, however, that there was not sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish a reasonable chance that the applicant would be at risk at the hands of Ghanian citizens because of his preachings of disaster and the subsequent soccer tragedy. Regarding the allegation of risk with respect to the Muslims, the RPD found that the related incidents were not sufficiently serious, persistent or repetitive to cumulatively amount to persecution. The Ghanian youth incident in 2000 was determined to be an isolated event. With respect to the police, the tribunal found it implausible that the police would blame the applicant for their actions at the riot such that they would spend time and money trying to kill him. The RPD referred to documentary evidence concerning the riot. There was no indication of blame being attached other than to the police. The tribunal concluded that there was not sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish that the applicant is a high profile, public figure who would be targeted by those he allegedly fears.
[5] The RPD did not accept the applicant's explanation for not claiming refugee status in the Ivory Coast. It considered the fact that the applicant was an informed traveller and that he had claimed refugee status immediately upon arrival in Canada. It found his failure to claim refugee status elsewhere to be relevant to his subjective fear.
[6] Last, the RPD found that the applicant is not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) because there was no evidence of torture or mistreatment by public officials or by persons acting in an official
capacity, or at the instigation of or with the consent of persons in the past. Additionally, there was not sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to establish that there is a reasonable chance that the applicant faces a risk to life or a risk of cruel or unusual punishment or treatment if he were to return to Ghana.
[7] The applicant alleges that the RPD erred in focussing on whether he had a "high profile" and submits that this is irrelevant because his evidence was that he was a "public figure". He argues that it was incumbent on the RPD to define "profile". This argument, in my view, is without merit. It was the applicant who asserted that he was a public figure He alleged that the groups knew of him and of his preachings and prophecies because he was a public figure. It is evident from its decision that the RPD concluded that the applicant was not well known. It accepted that the documentary evidence tendered by the applicant established that he was an evangelist, but found that this evidence did not indicate the level of his profile. It examined the objective documentary evidence. It concluded that the claimant's "sphere of influence is not as large as he believes". In using the term "high profile", in the context of this matter, it is clear that the RPD meant that the applicant was not well known, i.e., he was not a public figure. There is no need to define the obvious.
[8] The applicant also asserts that the tribunal failed to consider his circumstances in the Ghanian context. Specifically, he alleges that it failed to appreciate the significance of the documentary evidence regarding the belief in witch craft in Ghana as well as the evidence that suggests that Ghanian people are retaliatory and engage in vigilante activity. The tribunal referred extensively to the documentary evidence. There is nothing in its decision to suggest that it failed to have regard to the evidence relied upon by the applicant. The fact that some of the documentary evidence was not mentioned is not fatal to the tribunal's decision. The passages from the documentary evidence that are relied on by the applicant are part of the total evidence that the RPD is entitled to weigh as to reliability and cogency: Hassan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.). The tribunal additionally considered and analysed the allegations regarding each of the four groups that the applicant maintained were targeting him and determined that his allegations were not founded. It provided clear and cogent reasons for its conclusions with respect to each of the groups.
[9] In taking issue with the credibility findings of the RPD, the applicant argues that his evidence is presumed to be true and that corroboration is not required. It is correct that the applicant's sworn testimony is presumed to be true unless there is reason to doubt its truthfulness: Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.). However, the presumption is always rebuttable, and, in appropriate circumstances, may be rebutted by the failure of the documentary evidence to mention what one would normally expect it to mention: Adu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 114 (T.D.). In view of the vague and non-specific nature of the evidence provided by the applicant, there was reason to doubt its truthfulness and the RPD was entitled to seek corroboration. Regarding the applicant's allegation that the tribunal should have raised its concerns in relation to credibility and implausibility with him and provided him an opportunity to respond, there is no obligation on the tribunal to signal its conclusions on implausibility or on the general credibility of evidence, in advance of a decision. Rather, the onus remains on the applicant to establish, by credible evidence, his claim to be considered a Convention refugee: Sarker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 45 Imm. L.R. (2d) 209 (T.D.).
[10] The applicant also alleges that the RPD should have considered whether Christian evangelists are a social group and whether they are at risk of persecution in Ghana. There was no evidence to indicate that evangelists are being targeted in Ghana. The tribunal referred to the U.S. Department of State Religious Freedom Report, dated October, 2001, which states that relations between religious communities are generally amicable and that spokesmen for these communities advocate tolerance. It also indicates that missionary groups operate freely throughout the country.
[11] Last, the applicant argues that there was no evidence regarding whether the Ivory Coast accepts refugees from Ghana. The applicant was informed, prior to the hearing, that his failure to claim refugee status elsewhere would be an issue. The RPD considered that the failure to claim refugee status in the Ivory Coast was relevant with respect to the subjective component of the applicant's claim. It did not base its decision on this factor. The alternate explanation advanced by the applicant in this regard was dealt with by the tribunal in its finding that the applicant was not well known.
[12] The RPD concluded that there was insufficient credible evidence to support the applicant's claim. I am not persuaded that it erred in so concluding. The application for judicial review is dismissed and an order will so provide.
[13] Counsel for the applicant suggested the following question for certification:
Is there a duty on the board to provide specific criteria
with respect to the profile of a claimant?
This question does not arise on the facts of this matter. As stated earlier in these reasons, the RPD's decision is clear that in referring to the applicant's "profile", it was considering whether the applicant was well known. The word "profile" is not, here, open to any other reasonable interpretation and it cannot be said that the applicant was left wondering what "specific criteria" the tribunal applied. Thus, the question, if certifiable, is best left to a situation where the facts support it. No question is certified.
__________________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
May 20, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4478-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: GABRIEL OSEI BOATENG v. THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: May 8, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER: LAYDEN-STEVENSON, J.
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Roxanne Haniff-Darwent FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Rick Garvin FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ms. Roxanne Haniff-Darwent FOR APPLICANT
Calgary, AB
Morris A. Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada