Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions
Date 2018-02-22
Neutral citation 2018 FC 201
File numbers IMM-2096-17

Decision Content

Date: 20180222


Docket: IMM-2096-17

Citation: 2018 FC 201

Ottawa, Ontario, February 22, 2018

PRESENT:  The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan

BETWEEN:

SOKOREY SHARIF AHMED

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1]  Ms. Sokorey Sharie Ahmed (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “Board”), dismissing her claim to be found a Convention Refugee or person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c 27 (the “Act”).

[2]  The Board made negative credibility findings and determined that the Applicant had failed to establish her identity, as a citizen of Somalia. It also made a finding, pursuant to subsection 107(2) of the Act that the Applicant’s claim had no credible basis.

[3]  The Board’s decision involved the assessment of evidence and of credibility. These issues are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decisions in Koccinar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 329. The content of the standard of reasonableness, according to the decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 means that a decision of a statutory decision maker is justifiable, transparent and intelligible, and falls within a range of possible and acceptable outcomes.

[4]  In my opinion, the determinative issue in this application is the Board’s finding that the Applicant had failed to establish her identity. Failure to establish identity allows the Board to dismiss a claim without further consideration; see the decision in Rahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 319.

[5]  Section 106 of the Act addresses a claimant’s need  to establish identity and provides as follows:

Credibility

 

Crédibilité

106 The Refugee Protection Division must take into account, with respect to the credibility of a claimant, whether the claimant possesses acceptable documentation establishing identity, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of documentation or have taken reasonable steps to obtain the documentation.

106 La Section de la protection des réfugiés prend en compte, s’agissant de crédibilité, le fait que, n’étant pas muni de papiers d’identité acceptables, le demandeur ne peut raisonnablement en justifier la raison et n’a pas pris les mesures voulues pour s’en procurer.

[6]  The Board rejected the evidence offered by the Applicant. It rejected the evidence of two witnesses who testified on her behalf. The Board was not satisfied with the evidence tendered about the Applicant’s identity as a citizen of Somalia.

[7]  On the basis of my review of the evidence before the Board, I am satisfied that the Board reasonably concluded that the Applicant had failed to establish her identity. It is unnecessary for me to address the Applicant’s submission about the Board’s finding pursuant to subsection 107(2) of the Act.

[8]  In the result, this application for judicial review is dismissed, no question for certification arising.

 


JUDGMENT for IMM-2096-17

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed, no question for certification arising.

"E. Heneghan"

Judge

 


FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD


DOCKET:

IMM-2096-17

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:

SOKOREY SHARIF AHMED v. MCI

PLACE OF HEARING:

toronto, ontario

DATE OF HEARING:

november 22, 2017

JUDGMENT AND reasons:

HENEGHAN J.

 

DATED:

February 22, 2018

 

APPEARANCES:

Lani Gozlan

For The Applicant

 

David Joseph

For The Respondent

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Lani Gozlan

Barrister & Solicitor

Toronto, ON

 

For The Applicant

 

Attorney General of Canada

 

For The Respondent

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.