Date: 20010712
Docket: IMM-4379-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 754
Between:
Mohammed Buhari TAHIRU
Applicant
- and -
The Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated August 3, 2000 (with Reasons signed on August 12, 2000), in which the Board determined he was not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The Board held that the applicant was not a Convention refugee on the basis that it was not satisfied as to the applicant's identity. The only identity document submitted by the applicant is a birth certificate issued on March 16, 1981. The Board's relevant findings are as follows:
. . . The panel asked several questions to the claimant as well as counsel on his knowledge of his country and although the claimant seems to know how to get to the airport and certain areas around the airport, he was nevertheless unable to give any satisfactory details concerning Ghana that could support his claim of being from that country. The claimant was asked to name important cities and to give the proper population, but the claimant was unable to do so.
The panel also studied the birth certificate and asked the claimant if he was aware of the usual procedure to obtain a birth certificate in his country. The claimant was unaware of this procedure. The panel referred to document A-17 and the answer to the information request Ghana 29736, concerning certified copies of entries and registers of birth and death. The panel also expressed its specialised knowledge of such documents that are frequently presented here at the hearings and mentioned that the document adduced by the claimant, which is the only identification document presented, does not conform to the requirements as stated in GHA29736.E.
The panel also questioned the claimant briefly as to his general knowledge about the politics of his country and found that the claimant's answers were not satisfactory. And I repeat, the questions were very general in nature.
[3] The significance of establishing the identity of a claimant is set out in Husein v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1998] F.C.J. No. 726 (T.D.) (QL). In that case, the Board did not find the claimant to be credible on the issue of identity, as the only document produced was the claimant's birth certificate which the Board did not believe to be authentic. As identity was central to the case, Joyal J. concluded that once the Board had determined that identity had not been established, it was not necessary for it to analyse the evidence any further. Such a determination by the Board on the issue of identity must be reasonable and it must not be made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.
[4] In the case at bar, the Board's decision initially appears well-founded. However, upon reading the transcript, it seems to have misconstrued and even disregarded much of the applicant's testimony in arriving at its conclusion.
[5] In my view, the applicant did indeed offer detailed answers to most of the questions put to him by the Board and his counsel. In addition to describing the route from Mamoubi to the airport, the applicant offered detailed descriptions of two different routes from his purported home in Mamoubi to the city centre of Accra, describing the stops, the time and the mode of transportation for each route (pages 319 and 320 of the Board's original material) as well as the route from Mamoubi to Togo. He also named two of Ghana's holidays (page 326) and two of its newspapers (page 328) in reply to the Board's questioning.
[6] Further, contrary to what is alleged by the Board, the applicant was able to name three of the larger cities of Ghana, which seemed to satisfy the Board at the hearing (pages 323 to 325), and indicated the population of Accra and the comparative sizes of these cities in reply to the Board's questions (pages 325, 326 and 328).
[7] The Board notes the applicant's lack of knowledge with respect to the procedure in Ghana for obtaining a birth certificate, however it does not comment on his explanation that his father had obtained it for him (page 330). In my opinion, this explanation was very plausible and if the Board dismissed it as unsatisfactory (which is not clear from the decision), it would have been unreasonable to do so.
[8] As for political information on the country, the applicant was able to give the President's name and his party, although he was unable to state the age at which Ghanaian people can vote (page 301) and the date of the last elections in Ghana (page 302). The applicant explained his limited knowledge in this area by stating that he lived an isolated life in a mosque, that he had no interest in politics or in reading the newspaper and that his father did not educate him on these matters.
[9] In light of the particulars offered by the applicant on the country of Ghana, I find the Board acted arbitrarily in assessing the latter's testimony and ignored relevant evidence in arriving at its conclusion. In my opinion, therefore, it was unreasonable for the Board not to analyse the evidence any further concerning the substance of the applicant's claim.
[10] Consequently, the application for judicial review is allowed, the Board's decision is set aside and the matter is remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted panel.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 12, 2001