Docket: IMM-3312-02
Citation: 2003 FC 855
BETWEEN:
ZUBIDA KABIR AHMED
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ROULEAU, J.
[1] This is a judicial review of a decision by a Convention Refugee Determination Division Panel (the APanel@), dated June 17, 2002, finding that the applicant was not a Convention Refugee.
[2] The applicant is a 47-year old citizen of Ethiopia who arrived in Canada by car from the U.S. In her PIF, and again before the Panel, she states that she first arrived in the United States by air from Addis Ababa in the company of a friend of her uncle, a man named Abdullah, who then drove her to Winnipeg. Once in Winnipeg, where she knew no one, he left her and advised her to seek out the Oromo community, being her tribe of origin in Ethiopia. Her uncle and Abdullah had helped her obtain a passport in order to travel, but she states that Abdullah held her documents the entire trip and that he would not let her keep them. She left behind in Ethiopia four children and her husband, who she had not seen in over a year, and whose whereabouts are still unknown. The children are currently being cared for by her parents and a sister.
[3] The grounds of her claim under the Convention are for persecution by reason of her perceived political affiliation, in that the government of Ethiopia believes her and her husband to be supporters of the Oromo Liberation Front (AOLF@), a group that is working for increased rights for tribal members, and which the government of Ethiopia actively, and a times violently, suppresses.
[4] There are two main incidents which the applicant submits support her claim for refugee status. The applicant=s husband is a bus driver whose route takes him through territory controlled at least to some extent, by the OLF. At some time in approximately June of 1999, police came to the applicant=s small store looking for her husband. She states that they did not believe she did not know of his whereabouts and arrested her. She says the police then interrogated her, and beat her, demanding information about her husband.
[5] She submitted evidence from a doctor in Winnipeg detailing her physical scars and testified that they are as a result of the police beating. The doctor=s letter states the scars could have been made by falls or blunt instruments and does not make a conclusive finding that the scars are a result of a beating.
[6] The applicant claims she was released when her mother brought her children to the police station and demanded they take the children into custody if they would not release the applicant.
[7] The second incident relates to the applicant=s claim that the police went to her house following her release and took all of her belongings save some jewellery and clothing, and forced her to leave her home. She and her children moved in with her parents; her father eventually took her to Addis Ababa for her safety, and arranged to have her fly to the United States with Abdullah.
[8] The Panel found that the applicant was not a Convention refugee, saying:
She did not provide sufficient credible evidence to establish that her alleged fear of persecution is well founded. The panel does not believe that the government of Ethiopia has any interest in the claimant.
[9] Further, the Panel stated that it did not believe Abdullah has taken her identity documents; rather they believed she had disposed of her identity and travel documents either in Ethiopia or in the United States, although it did accept that she is a citizen of Ethiopia and an ethnic Oromo.
[10] The Panel identifies four main reasons for doubting the credibility of the applicant. One, that the police were unlikely to have released her if they did believe that either she or her husband were involved with the OLF, thus raising a question of whether these incidents actually occurred. Two, the Ethiopian government is unlikely to have issued her authentic identity and travel documents, required to travel outside Ethiopia, if they suspected she was involved in OLF activities. Three, the applicant had not made any effort to locate her husband despite having not heard from him in over a year at the time of the incidents. In light of husband=s role in bringing in money to support the family, the Panel found this to be inconsistent with the behaviour of married couples, particularly those who have children together. The applicant testified that as a Muslim woman, it would not be appropriate for her to investigate her husband=s activities. The Panel states that
[it] does not believe that the claimant=s husband had disappeared for one year or that the police came looking for him. The panel believes that the claimant fabricated the story of the husband=s disappearance to embellish her claim.
[11] Finally, the applicant provided a letter from her sister in Addis Ababa that states that the applicant=s husband=s whereabouts is still unknown, and asking her for money to help support her children. The letter says nothing about the Ethiopian government looking for the applicant, or any further problems the family may have encountered regarding the applicant=s perceived connection with the OLF. As the letter reveals nothing about the government=s interest in the applicant, the Panel found it supported their conclusion that the Ethiopian government has no interest in the applicant.
[12] The applicant argues that the Panel is inconsistent in its findings of credibility, clearly rejecting some portions of the applicant=s testimony but ambiguously treating other aspects; that this amounts to an error of law. The respondent urges that the Panel made findings on credibility that were reasonable based on the evidence before it and should therefore have accepted her allegations of fear of persecution.
[13] The Panel is fully entitled to make findings of credibility and it is not the position of this court to reassess the evidence in reviewing the case. Rather, the court is only to determine if the reasons given by the Panel for its findings are reasonable, and ensure the Panel gave Aits reasons for casting doubt upon the appellant's credibility in clear and unmistakable terms,@ as Justice Heald put it in Hilo v. Canada (MCI) (1993), 130 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.) at 176.
[14] The Panel did not note any evidence that led it to doubt the applicant=s credibility without stating the basis of their doubt. With respect to the applicant=s ignorance of her husband=s activities and whereabouts, the Panel stated that it felt her lack of investigation was implausible, given her testimony that she and her children were financially dependent on her husband. In its reasons, the Panel notes the applicant=s statement that Muslim women would not question their husbands; however, the Panel found that taking absolutely no steps to find her husband after a year was not consistent with her circumstances. This is not an unreasonable conclusion from the facts alleged.
[15] The applicant submitted that the Panel was inconsistent in its findings regarding the applicant=s scars, allegedly from police beatings. One of the final statements in the Panel=s reasons is, A[a]lthough...the panel does not condone Ethiopian police mistreating its citizens, the panel found that the police released the claimant after they did not find evidence linking her with OLF.@ The applicant submits this statement is inconsistent, indicating that the Panel believed the applicant was beaten, yet not finding evidence of persecution sufficient to ground a refugee claim.
[16] This is not the entirety of the Panel=s discussion of the applicant=s beating, and to assess reasonableness the reasons must be read as a whole. The Panel clearly states that the applicant did not demonstrate that the scars were a result of police beatings at page 5 of its reasons; following this is the statement against police violence wherein the Panel makes clear that regardless of any past arrest or interrogation, the police are no longer interested in the applicant regarding any OLF activities. Therefore, there is no on-going objective reasonable fear of persecution. The panel flatly states that:
[t]here is less than a mere possibility that the claimant will be persecuted for a Convention reason if she were to return to Ethiopia today.
[17] This statement indicates that even if the Panel accepted that the applicant had suffered mistreatment, leading to her scars, from the police, their interest in her ended when they released her. It is not a patently unreasonable conclusion that the police would not release her if they still believed the applicant to be an OLF member, or that she had information regarding her husband. The significance of the Panel final statement, then, is that even if they had found the applicant to be credible about her past experience, there was no evidence that the persecution would be on-going is she was returned to Ethiopia. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to find the applicant a refugee, even if there may have been persecution in the past.
[18] Given due consideration to the testimony of the applicant before it, and the evidence presented by the Refugee Claims officer and other documentary evidence presented, the Panel cannot be said to have come to a patently unreasonable conclusion. The Panel found the applicant to lack credibility, and gave a sufficiently clear statement to support its conclusion on this finding that Ethiopian authorities were not really interested in her or her activities.
[19] Neither party suggested a serious question of general importance for possible certification pursuant to paragraph 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. No question is certified.
[20] For the reasons set out above, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
July 10, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET : IMM-3312-02
STYLE OF CAUSE : ZUBIDA KABIR AHMED v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Winnipeg
DATE OF HEARING: June 11, 2003
REASONS : The Honourable Mr. Justice Rouleau
DATE OF REASONS: July 10, 2003
APPEARANCES : Mr. David Matas
FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Sharlene Teller-Langdon
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD :
Mr. David Matas FOR THE APPLICANT
Barrister & Solicitor
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT