Date: 20000824
Docket: IMM-3602-99
Ottawa, Ontario, August 24, 2000
Before: Pinard J.
Between:
Pierre Henri Lumière KINGUE ELESSA
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
ORDER
The application for judicial review from the decision by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board on June 23, 1999 that Pierre Henri Lumière Kingue Elessa is not a Convention refugee is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20000824
Docket: IMM-3602-99
Between:
Pierre Henri Lumière KINGUE ELESSA
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] The application for judicial review is from a decision by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board on June 23, 1999 that the plaintiff Pierre Henri Lumière Kingue Elessa is not a Convention refugee as defined in s. 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The plaintiff, a citizen of Cameroon, arrived in Canada on November 17, 1998. He alleged that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for his alleged political opinions and membership in a particular social group, namely a family whose father was a well-known Abo.
[3] So far as the alleged political opinions are concerned, the panel concluded at pp. 3 and 4 of its decision:
[TRANSLATION]
| . . . the claimant's problem is a misunderstanding between the authorities and himself and he should have taken legal action to indicate to the authorities that he did not belong to the SDF as he alleged. |
| At no time did he approach a lawyer to obtain legal services to defend his situation, nor did he contact the SDF or a legal defence organization to assist him with the authorities, thereby failing to perform a duty which a claimant has to show that he has sought protection or tried to find solutions before seeking international protection. |
[4] The panel further found that although the plaintiff might have experienced certain problems he was able to continue living in the village of Penja, where he resided and worked for a year without any problems.
[5] Further, the panel concluded that there was no objective fear as the plaintiff had himself submitted his file in order to obtain a passport.
[6] Finally, the panel did not believe that the plaintiff was targeted because of the fact that his father had been a leading Abo. To begin with, there was no problem in obtaining his national identity card, issued on April 22, 1997, and secondly, neither his brothers nor mother had any problem.
[7] Even if I were to conclude, as the plaintiff maintained, that the panel was wrong, in a situation of allegations of persecution for alleged political opinions, to find [TRANSLATION] "that the claimant's problem is a misunderstanding between the authorities and himself and he should have taken legal action to indicate to the authorities that he did not belong to the SDF as he alleged", the fact remains that the panel also concluded that the plaintiff could obtain internal refuge.
[8] As to the latter possibility, the panel said the following:
[TRANSLATION]
| And if the panel had been persuaded that the claimant might have problems, we feel he could have continued living in the village of Penja located an hour from Douala, where he had resided for a year without any problems, even working there; and even living in Douala, where certain sectoral representatives are from the SDF and some sectors are administered by mayors from that party. |
| After his exile in the village for a year, as he no longer wished to do rural work and to continue his studies, he returned to Douala to try and obtain a passport. By his own admission, he submitted his file himself, indicating to the panel that there was no objective fear, as if there had been a fear he would not at any time have appeared before the authorities to obtain a passport. |
| As regards his allegation as a member of the family of a well-known Abo, the panel did not feel that he was targeted in view of the fact that in his national identity card issued on April 22, 1997 it states that it is true that his father was deceased, from the inscription on the card "Father Late Kingue Djong Clement". By his own admission, the claimant had no problem obtaining it and at the hearing he admitted that a brother was working in a bank and another was working in a discotheque, and even his mother had had no problem. |
[9] In these matters it is well established1 that the panel must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility that a person claiming refugee status will be persecuted outside a particular region of a country, and in view of both the person's particular situation and that of the particular country in question, conditions outside that region are such that it would not be unreasonable for the person to seek refuge there. The burden of proof in this regard is on the person seeking refugee status, who has the right to be warned if the question of internal refuge is to be raised before the panel.
[10] Applying all these principles to the facts of the case at bar, it seems to the Court that the panel's questions to the plaintiff were quite clear enough to put the latter on notice that the question of internal refuge arose in his case. Further, I consider based on the evidence that the plaintiff has not discharged his burden of showing that the inferences drawn by this specialized tribunal about the existence of internal refuge could not reasonably have been drawn (see Aguebor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315). As the existence of such refuge is sufficient grounds for denying the plaintiff the refugee status claimed, the instant application for judicial review must be dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 24, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: IMM-3602-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: PIERRE HENRI LUMIÈRE KINGUE ELESSA
v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JULY 5, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: DENAULT J.
DATED: AUGUST 24, 2000
APPEARANCES:
MICHELLE LANGELIER FOR THE APPLICANT
MARIE-CLAUDE DEMERS FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MICHELLE LANGELIER FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________1 See Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 and Rasaratnam v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1992] 1 F.C. 706.