Date: 20040430
Docket: IMM-1838-03
Citation: 2004 FC 636
BETWEEN:
LETICIA OBENG
Applicant(s)
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent(s)
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB), dated February 26, 2003, that the applicant is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of sections 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Leticia Obeng (the applicant) is Christian and a citizen of Ghana, where she is a member of the Akan tribe. She alleges that she fears persecution because of her membership in a social group, women, because her father forced her to marry a Muslim man who demands that she undergo female genital mutilation.
[3] The IRB determined that the applicant is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection" because her allegations were not credible.
[4] The IRB gave several reasons for its finding that the applicant's story was not credible. The panel noted, inter alia, the inconsistency between the applicant's allegation that she fears her father and the information contained in the Certificate of Registration in the birth registry, the applicant's failure to mention her fear of Mr. Banda at the port of entry, and the implausibility of the applicant's statements regarding the financial resources which enabled her to travel to Canada. A review of the file indicates that the applicant's explanations on this point were simply found to be inadequate. In Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238, the Federal Court of Appeal held that a tribunal's perception that the applicant is not credible on an important aspect of the claim can amount to a finding that there is no credible evidence on which the claim can be based. The panel was therefore justified in relying on these inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities to determine that the applicant was not credible with regard to her subjective fear.
[5] As I pointed out earlier, specifically in Gonulcan v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2004 FC 392, [2004] F.C.J. No. 486 (QL): "In like circumstances, the IRB may find against a refugee claimant or a person in need of protection without having to consider his objective fear of persecution or the need to extend protection to individuals, other than himself, from his country of origin."
[6] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Yvon Pinard"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
April 30, 2004
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1838-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: LETICIA OBENG v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 30, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: Pinard J.
DATE OF REASONS: April 30, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Alain Joffe FOR THE APPLICANT
Lucie St-Pierre FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Alain Joffe FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario