Date: 20000825
Docket: IMM-4763-99
BETWEEN:
SADIC ACHEAMPONG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TEITELBAUM, J:
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision, dated September 1, 1999, of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD), in which it was determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee within the meaning of the Immigration Act.1 Leave to commence this application for judicial review was granted on May 25, 2000.
Background
[2] The applicant, Sadic Acheampong, is a 40 year old citizen of Ghana. He arrived in Canada on March 23, 1998, and made a claim for refugee status that same day. The applicant is a member of the Konkomba tribe2 of northern Ghana; he fears persecution at the hands of the Nanumba and Dagomba tribes because of his tribal, or ethnic, background.
[3] In his personal information form (PIF),3 the applicant relates the events that led him to leave his home and seek asylum in Canada. His father was a farmer, having inherited land from the applicant's grandfather, according to Konkomba tribal customs. After the applicant finished high school in 1976, he joined his father on the farm. They grew yams and groundnuts, and raised cattle and goats.
[4] The present inter-tribal conflicts relate to land ownership and chieftaincy issues. The Konkombas migrated from Togo and settled in northern Ghana. The Dagombas and Nanumbas, tribes indigenous to northern Ghana, do not agree with Konkomba ownership of land, nor do they agree with the installation of Konkomba chiefs. Violent conflicts have resulted.
[5] In his PIF, the applicant alleges that in October and November 1997, approximately 100 Nanumbas and Gonjas attacked his village, burned his family's house, and made off with crops, cattle, and goats. Several Konkombas were killed. The applicant states that he fled to Burkina Faso, where he remained for two months before returning home.
[6] He states that on January 2, 1998, the Nanumba attacked his village again, with bows and arrows, guns, and cutlasses. The applicant's father and two elder brothers were killed. The applicant claims that he was beaten severely and left for dead. However, he was able to summon the strength to escape into the bush, where he walked for three days until he got to a road and secured a ride to Burkina Faso. Once in that country, he stayed with a friend of his father, who also helped the applicant to travel to Canada.
[7] In support of his claim for refugee status, the applicant submitted a psychological assessment to the CRDD. The report, dated April 29, 1999, was prepared by Dr. Hap Davis, a Chartered Psychologist.4 The report was prepared at the behest of the applicant's counsel for the purposes of his claim for refugee status.
[8] In the report, Dr. Davis diagnoses the applicant as currently suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and having suffered a discrete episode of major depression in 1994. Dr. Davis concludes that the applicant rates as a category 4 on the Categorical Risk to Mental Health Criteria, which indicates a high risk for psychological harm if returned to his country of origin.
Tribunal's Decision
[9] The panel made no findings on the well-foundedness of the applicant's claim; instead, it determined that he has an internal flight alternative (IFA) in either of two cities: Accra or Sunyani. Accra is on the southern coast of Ghana, known as the Gold Coast; Sunyani, where the applicant was born and attended school, is also in the south, near Ghana's eastern border with the Ivory Coast.
[10] Although the panel made no finding regarding the applicant's credibility, it did state that it had some doubts concerning his testimony that he is Konkomba. The panel stated that the applicant did not have reliable identity documents, filing only a birth certificate obtained by a friend in Accra after the applicant arrived in Canada. The panel's doubts are also based on the fact that the applicant requested an Akan interpreter, but then testified in Twi, neither of which are Konkomba languages.
[11] Neither party addressed the above matter in their oral submissions.
[12] On the basis of considerable documentary evidence, the panel accepted that tribal conflicts over land occur in northern Ghana, and that such conflicts are very violent and result in many deaths. The panel went on to state:
| However, the documents do not show that the ethnic conflicts have spread to Accra. In fact, Accra, a city of over a million inhabitants, is a cosmopolitan center [sic] in Africa. No reports were filed by the claimant to indicate that conflicts occur in that city between the Kokomba [sic] and the other tribes he fears in the north. The documentary evidence shows that the conflicts are over land which the Kokomba [sic] claim as theirs, and which the other tribes dispute. This issue does not arise in Accra. The panel finds that there is no more than a mere possibility the claimant would suffer persecution in Accra as a result of his ethnic background.5 |
[13] With regard to the psychological assessment, the panel noted Dr. Davis' diagnosis of PTSD and past depression and his opinion that these may make it unreasonably harsh for the applicant to return to Ghana. The panel concluded:
| While the panel is sympathetic to the claimant's psychological problems, it finds that the circumstances and surroundings in Accra would be sufficiently different from his northern farming experiences to make that city a reasonable internal flight alternative for him. If the claimant were in fear of the authorities or police which could find him anywhere, it may be reasonable to surmise that the whole country is not a reasonable place for him to live. But since he fears the northern, landowning tribes who are not seeking him out as an individual and have no personal interest in him beyond his former status as a farmer, the panel finds his life in Accra would of necessity be so different from where he lived before that it would not be unduly harsh to expect him to avail himself of the anonymity and safety of that city.6 |
Issues
[14] Whether the panel erred in determining that the applicant has an IFA in Accra or Sunyani.
[15] Whether the panel failed to have regard to all of the evidence when it made its decision.
Applicant's Position
[16] The applicant submits that the panel erred in finding that the applicant has an IFA. The applicant contends that the panel overly simplified his experiences of tribal conflicts, characterizing them as "northern farming experiences." The applicant further contends that there was no evidence before the CRDD as to what conditions are like in Accra, and that the panel merely engaged in speculation.
[17] The applicant also submits that his psychological problems, as outlined in Dr. Davis' report, preclude him from seeking refuge in any part of Ghana.
Respondent's Position
[18] The respondent maintains that the applicant bears the onus of establishing that he faced a serious possibility of persecution throughout Ghana, including any areas alleged to offer him an IFA. The respondent submits that the documentary evidence before the CRDD indicated that the ethnic conflicts which the applicant feared were in northern Ghana; no evidence showed that they also occurred in Accra. Furthermore, documentary evidence indicated that there was no evidence of hostility from the general public, the police, or the government toward those arriving in the south from the northern regions. Documentary evidence establishes that individuals have sought refuge in Accra; accordingly, the CRDD's conclusion was not based on speculation.
[19] The respondent submits that the applicant takes issue with the weight assigned to the psychological report, and that is not a proper subject for judicial review. The report addressed two issues: the applicant's credibility and his well-integrated fear of persecution, both of which are matters for the CRDD to decide.
Analysis
[20] In Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (M.E.I.), the Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the principles of an IFA:
| It should first be emphasized that the notion of an internal flight alternative (IFA) is not a legal defence. Neither is it a legal doctrine. It merely is a convenient, short-hand way of describing a fact situation in which a person may be in danger of persecution in one part of the country but not in another. The idea of an internal flight alternative is "inherent" in the definition of a Convention refugee (see Mahoney J.A. in Rasaratnam, [1992] 1 F.C. 706 supra, at page 710); it is not something separate at all. That definition requires that the claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution which renders them unable or unwilling to return to their home country. If claimants are able to seek safe refuge within their own country, there is no basis for finding that they are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. As Mahoney J.A. stated in Rasaratnam, supra, at page 710: |
| [T]he Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists. |
| Mr. Justice Mahoney continued, at page 710: |
| [S]ince by definition a Convention refugee must be a refugee from a country, not from some subdivision or region of a country, a claimant cannot be a Convention refugee if there is an IFA. It follows that the determination of whether or not there is an IFA is integral to the determination whether or not a claimant is a Convention refugee. I see no justification for departing from the norms established by the legislation and jurisprudence and treating an IFA question as though it were a cessation of or exclusion from Convention refugee status.7 |
[21] In the instant case, the CRDD concluded that the applicant has an IFA in either Accra or Sunyani. The panel reviewed the documentary evidence and concluded that there were violent inter-tribal conflicts occurring in northern Ghana; the panel also concluded that such evidence did not establish that this conflict had spread to southern Ghana.8
[22] The panel was entitled to make this finding, and indeed the applicant, who had the onus of establishing that he could not seek refuge anywhere within Ghana, was unable to show that he faced a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country, including the region to which the panel ascribed an IFA.
[23] With regard to the psychological assessment submitted by the applicant, it is clear that the panel took this document into account in coming to its decision; and it appears that the panel gave the report little weight. At the outset of the report, Dr. Davis indicates that he was asked by the applicant's counsel to make findings regarding the applicant's credibility and well-integrated fear of persecution. Both of these questions were posed within a psychological context; however, the panel is in no way bound to follow the report's conclusions on either issue as these are issues that are specifically within the CRDD's mandate. While the panel had to consider the report, it was clearly entitled to assign it little or no weight with regard to these issues; with respect, the CRDD cannot defer its decision-making function to, or allow it to be usurped by, the author of this assessment.
[24] In addition, the medical report only refers to a possible subjective fear of persecution. There is no evidence of an objective nature that would indicate that the applicant would be persecuted in Accra.
Conclusion
[25] Based on the foregoing, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
[26] Neither party had a question to be certified.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
J.F.C.C.
Calgary, Alberta
August 25, 2000
__________________1R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 [hereinafter the Act].
2Referred to as "Kokomba" in the CRDD's reasons and the respondent's memorandum.
3Applicant's Record, pp. 5-15.
4Applicant's Record, pp. 17-26. Dr. Davis' curriculum vitae can be found at pp. 27-31.
5Applicant's Record, pp. 34-35.
6Applicant's Record, pp. 35-36.
7Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.) at para. 4.
8The panel relied on one document in particular, Response to Information Request GHA24879.E, dated August 23, 1996. The panel includes in its reasons a quotation from this document attributed to a law professor at the University of Ghana. The document can be found in the Tribunal Record, pp. 153-154.