Date: 19990421
Docket: IMM-2722-98
BETWEEN:
SHUKRI MOHAMED SAHAL
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
EVANS J.:
[1] Shukri Mohamed Sahal claimed refugee status in Canada by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution in Somalia on grounds of nationality and membership of a particular social group. The Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board heard her claim in September 1997, and in a decision dated May 11, 1998 rejected it, on the ground that she was a citizen of Ethiopia, a country where she had no well-founded fear of persecution.
[2] The Board found that, while Ms. Sahal had undoubtedly lived in Somalia for most of her life, she was an Ethiopian citizen by birth. Ms. Sahal had stated in both the documentary materials that she submitted to the Board, and her oral testimony that she had been born in Ethiopia, but at a very young age had moved with her family to Somalia. She subsequently became a naturalized Somalian citizen, a step that would have required the renunciation of her Ethiopian citizenship. However, the Board did not accept the authenticity of the documents submitted to establish that the applicant was a Somalian citizen.
[3] Nonetheless, the Board recognized that, since Ms. Sahal claimed not to have any Ethiopian documents proving her place of birth, she might face some difficulty in collecting the evidence needed to satisfy the Ethiopian authorities of her Ethiopian citizenship.
[4] The Board also noted that it was the policy of the government of Ethiopia to encourage the return of Ethiopian citizens caught up in the strife in Somalia, and that it was possible for a person to prove citizenship other than by the production of official Ethiopian documents such as a travel document or a birth certificate. Nonetheless, the Board concluded, because the applicant"s family left Ethiopia more than twenty years ago, and had become dispersed as a result of the civil war in Somalia, it would no doubt require diligence on Ms. Sahal"s part to prove her citizenship to the satisfaction of the Ethiopian authorities.
[5] Counsel for the applicant argued at the hearing that the Board"s decision was erroneous in law because it had concluded that Ms. Sahal was a citizen of Ethiopia, and therefore entitled to the protection of that country, even though the acceptance of her citizenship claim by Ethiopia was by no means certain. And at the end of the day, counsel submitted, what matters for the purpose of protection is whether the country of claimed citizenship regards a person as its citizen, and not the Board"s view of the person"s citizenship.
[6] Counsel referred me to several cases in which it has been said that a claimant to refugee status is entitled to the protection of a country where it would be a mere formality for the person concerned to prove citizenship to the authorities of that country, by the presentation of a passport for stamping, or registration, for instance: Bouianova v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 67 F.T.R. 74 (F.C.T.D.); Desai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 88 F.T.R. 161 (F.C.T.D.); Grygorian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 111 F.T.R. 316 (F.C.T.D.).
[7] Counsel further observed that, while the Ethiopian government welcomes Ethiopian citizens returning from Somalia, it is also concerned to ensure that Somalian citizens do not take advantage of this policy. Hence, the citizenship claim of the applicant is liable to be subject to close scrutiny by the Ethiopian authorities because she is an ethnic Somali, has lived for most of the life in Somalia and has few remaining links to Ethiopia. Indeed, counsel noted, an official from the Ethiopian embassy in Ottawa has stated that it cannot accept Ms. Sahal as an Ethiopian national without some supporting proof.
[8] Nonetheless, in my view the Board did not err in law in dismissing Ms. Sahal"s claim for refugee status. Cases in which the Court found that a person"s recognition as a citizen of a country was a "mere formality" cannot be determinative, either way, of the issue raised on the facts of this case.
[9] More on point is Zdanov v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 81 F.T.R. 246 (F.C.T.D.), where the Court upheld a finding by the Board that the applicant was a citizen of Russia, even though the applicant"s citizenship status was far from being cut and dried. In support of this conclusion Rouleau J. said (at page 250):
| The applicant in the present case has not applied for citizenship nor has he made any inquiries as to whether or not citizenship would be denied him; he has no desire to do so and consequently he describes himself as a "stateless person". In my opinion, he cannot expect to base his claim to be a Convention refugee on the fact that he has not applied for, or been granted, Russian citizenship; to hold otherwise would allow him to undermine the rationale underlying international refugee law ... |
[10] This statement is applicable to the facts before me, where the applicant maintained before the Board that she was a citizen of Somalia, and not of Ethiopia. Accordingly, she has as yet made no efforts to present evidence to the Ethiopian authorities establishing that she was born in Ethiopia and is an Ethiopian citizen. As Rouleau J. also said in Zdanov, supra (at page 250):
| ... the question of nationality involves a weighing of the evidence and a determination of the facts on a case by case basis." |
[11] In my opinion there was ample evidence before the Board to support its conclusion that on the balance of probabilities Ms. Sahal is a citizen of Ethiopia by virtue of her birth, and with due diligence will be able to provide proof that will satisfy the Ethiopian authorities that she is a citizen.
[12] For these reasons the application for judicial review is dismissed.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO John M. Evans
April 21, 1999. J.F.C.C.