BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Pinard J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated July 25, 2005 (Notice of decision dated August 2, 2005) wherein the Board found that the applicant is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Annie Mujinga Ilunga (the applicant) is a Congolese citizen who alleges a fear of persecution in the Democratic Republic of Congo due to her perceived political opinion.
[3] The Board found the applicant not to be a "Convention refugee" or "person in need of protection" because it found her to be incredible.
[4] The applicant submits that the Board has made serious errors in its assessment of the applicant's credibility, and that therefore its findings are patently unreasonable. I agree.
[5] The Board impugns the applicant's credibility in the following manner:
On a demandé à la demanderesse pourquoi une élève de première année (son cas) serait-elle mêlée dans des activités menées par des élèves de troisième année, ou comment elle aurait pu être perçue comme une « leader » du mouvement, vu son âge et année de scolarité. La demanderesse n'a pas pu donner une explication à ce sujet.
[6] However, the applicant's evidence, both in her Personal Information Form (PIF) and at her hearing, was that all of the students of the institute where she was studying had participated in the demonstration/strike of December 8, 2003. In her PIF, the applicant stated, "des étudiants en troisième année licence ont commencé à parler aux autres étudiants... Ils ont demandé à tous les étudiants de participer" and also that « Vers 8 h le matin du 8 décembre, tous les étudiants se sont réunis devant l'institut » . Although the demonstration may have been organized by third year students, all of the students, including first year students, participated. The Board has clearly ignored this evidence.
[7] With regard to the Board questioning why the applicant would be perceived by the authorities as a "leader" of the student movement, again, the Board has not had regard to all of the evidence before it in making its decision. The applicant clearly testified in her PIF and at her hearing that she was considered by the authorities to be one of the leaders of the movement because she is of the baluba tribe - most members of the Union pour la démocratie et le progrès social (UDPS) - the major opposition to the Kabila regime - are members of the baluba tribe.
[8] No mention is made of this evidence in the Board's reasons. The Board, in stating that the applicant has not given any explanation of this, again, has ignored evidence before it and has thereby erred (see, for example, Toro v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1981] 1 F.C. 652 (C.A.); Irarrazabel-Olmedo v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1982] 1 F.C. 125 (C.A.); and Owusu-Ansah v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1989), 8 Imm.L.R. (2d) 106 (F.C.A.)).
[9] The Board further stated that the fact that the applicant did not make a claim for refugee protection in Englandundermines her subjective fear.
[10] According to the applicant, the following exchange took place at the applicant's hearing (pages 82 and 83 of the Tribunal Record):
Board member: « Juste pour clarifier, la question de joindre -- je n'ai pas bien compris. Vous avez décidé de ne pas aller en Belgique. Vous avez expliqué que c'était parce que votre soeur était ici. J'ai remarqué que vous avez passé par l'Angleterre aussi.
Est-ce que vous avez pensé que peut-être que vous auriez pu demander l'asile en Angleterre, par exemple? »
Applicant : « Oui, je pouvais demander d'abord là-bas, mais je me disais que demander là-bas, je ne connais personne. Et si j'avais, par exemple, besoin d'aide, à qui je pouvais me référer? Même s'il y a quand même une différence d'années et que je n'ai pas vécu avec ma soeur, même si je partais au Canada quelque chose pouvait m'arriver. J'avais quelqu'un au moins qui pouvait m'aider même s'il n'y a pas une bonne relation. »
[11] The applicant submits that again, the Board makes no mention of this explanation. It is not within the Board's mandate to ignore a reasonable explanation and to treat the evidence as though the explanation had never been given (Mampia-Kitoko v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (October 26, 2004), IMM-8833-03 and Owusu-Ansah, above).
[12] However, contrary to this submission, the applicant's explanation is expressly considered by the Board and reasons are given for its rejection. At page 6 of its decision, the Board stated:
La demanderesse n'a pas fait une demande d'asile en Angleterre. Son explication a été qu'elle n'y connaissait pas personne.
Le tribunal n'accepte pas cette explication puisque la demanderesse est une adulte et possède treize années de scolarité. Il est raisonnable de s'attendre qu'une fois partie de la RDC, la demanderesse aurait fait une demande d'asile aussitôt que possible. Pourtant, la demanderesse ne l'a pas fait. L'Angleterre est un pays développé, signataire de la Convention. Le fait que la demanderesse n'ait pas demandé l'asile là-bas, dans un pays démocratique, met aussi en cause sa crainte subjective.
[13] Be that as it may, this conclusion of the Board is nevertheless patently unreasonable. The applicant left England the same day that she arrived. England was, without a doubt, only a stop en route to Canada. The reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal in Tung v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1991), 124 N.R. 388, are of relevance:
[20] Fourthly, the tribunal found that the appellant's failure to "claim asylum" in any of the countries he visited enroute to Canada to be inconsistent with that of a person who fears for his life. There is no evidence that any of these countries in question had ratified the 1951 U.N. Convention and the 1967 Protocol or that they had adopted laws implementing those instruments. Be that as it may, while the Board is authorized by subsection 68(2) of the Act "to take notice of any facts that may be judicially noticed", [see footnote 11] I think it was wrong for it to have speculated that refugee protection was available in these countries. That apart, the appellant was at all times in transit to Canada and had already decided to claim Convention refugee status after he arrived here.
[14] In Tung, the applicant had been in transit for five weeks after his departure from China and had visited four countries before coming to Canada. In the case at bar, the applicant had spent less than one day in England. It is therefore my opinion that the Board in the case at bar made a patently unreasonable error in determining that the applicant's stay in England of less than a day in duration undermined her subjective fear of persecution, for, she had already decided to claim Convention refugee status in Canada, and was at all times in transit to Canada.
[15] It is my opinion that the Board's findings noted above are wrong. In the context of a decision that is based on the applicant's lack of credibility, I am of the view that the Board's errors stain the entire decision and that the intervention of this Court is warranted. Therefore, this application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Board is set aside and the matter is referred back for rehearing and re-determination by a differently constituted panel of the Board in accordance with these Reasons.
Ottawa, Ontario
May 12, 2006
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5001-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANNIE MUJINGA ILUNGA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April 27, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Pinard J.
DATED: May 12, 2006
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Micheal Crane FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Janet Chisholm FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Micheal Crane FOR THE APPLICANT
Toronto, Ontario
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada