Date: 20160526

Docket: IMM-4352-15

Citation: 2016 FC 582

Ottawa, Ontario, May 26, 2016

PRESENT:    The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I.                   Introduction

[1]               The Applicant, a citizen of Cameroon, claimed refugee protection on the basis that, as a lesbian, she would be persecuted in her home country. This judicial review challenges a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] finding that there was “no credible basis” for the claim.

II.                Background

[2]               The RPD found that the Applicant was not a credible witness and had not provided sufficient trustworthy and reliable evidence that she was a lesbian and that she was sought by police or sexually assaulted in Cameroon because she was a lesbian.

[3]               The general credibility finding was based on significant omissions from the Applicant’s Basis of Claim [BOC], contradictions between the Applicant’s testimony and documentary evidence as well as irregularities with documents produced.

[4]               The Applicant’s refugee claim bore a striking resemblance to a claim made earlier by her half-sister. The core stories are almost identical.

The Applicant had failed to mention the existence of her half-sister, alleging that she was unaware of her existence despite listing the same residential address on their respective study permit applications.

[5]               The RPD had a number of other credibility concerns aside from the half-sister’s contrived claim – these included vagueness as to her lover’s name; inconsistency as to membership in the Humanity First Cameroon organization; and direct contradictions in her narrative.

[6]               No weight was given to her testimony. Her documentary evidence from Cameroon was found to be false and her Canadian documents were given little weight.

[7]               The Applicant relied on a psychological report but it was discounted because it never mentioned the Applicant’s alleged rape incident – a seminal event.

[8]               The Applicant also submitted two pictures of her in a Rainbow Refugee Society t-shirt and a letter from a volunteer at the Rainbow Refugee Society supporting the claim of being a lesbian. Both pieces of evidence were rejected for insufficiency – the photos did not establish sexual orientation and the letter was based on attendance at LGBTQ events.

[9]               The RPD, having examined all the evidence, reached a “no credible basis” finding.

III.             Analysis

[10]           The standard of review regarding credibility findings is reasonableness (AB v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 899).

[11]           A finding of “no credible basis” is a severe finding with significant consequences (loss of right to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division). It is more than a credibility finding (Pournaminivas v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1099). Therefore, to make such a finding, the RPD must examine and reject a piece of relevant evidence so that there is no credible evidence which could support a claim.

[12]           In this case, the RPD did exactly that. The Member took each piece of relevant evidence and assessed it. Having rejected each piece of evidence, there was nothing left upon which a claim could be based. Both the oral and documentary evidence failed to meet the standard of sufficiency.

IV.             Conclusion

[13]           Therefore, this judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed.

"Michael L. Phelan"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: