Date: 20041126
Docket: IMM-10111-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1662
Ottawa, Ontario, this 26th day of November, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SNIDER
BETWEEN:
SIMONE INGABIRE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
SNIDER J.
[1] The Applicant, Simone Ingabire, is a 20-year-old citizen of Rwanda, who arrived in Canada on September 6, 2001. She claims that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in Rwanda on the basis of her race and membership in a particular social group, namely, her tribe. Ms. Ingabire further claims that, in Rwanda, she will be subjected to a danger of torture, and to a risk to her life or to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of Hutu extremists. In a decision dated October 22, 2003, a panel of the of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division ("the Board") determined that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. The Applicant seeks judicial review of this decision.
Issues
[2] The issue before me is whether the Board erred in failing to consider the Gender Guidelines (Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution; Guidelines Issued by the Chairperson pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act _Repealed_, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, as am., repealed by 2001, c. 27, s. 274(a)).
Board's Decision
[3] One of the issues addressed by the Board was the discrepancy between the statements the Applicant made at the port of entry ("POE"), and the statements she made in her Personal Information Form ("PIF"). Specifically, at the POE, the Applicant stated, in writing, that she was almost raped, while, in the PIF, she stated that she was raped. When asked at the hearing to account for the discrepancy, she first explained that, at the POE, she was not ready to discuss her rape because she was uncomfortable. However, a few minutes later, she explained that she thought that "almost being raped" ("avoir failli _tre violée") and "being raped" (_tre violée) were the same thing.
[4] The Board recognized the intimidation that might result for a 17-year-old girl before immigration officers who often ask personal questions. However, the Board found that the Applicant's explanation for the discrepancy was unreasonable, given that the statements at the POE were made in writing (not orally), that her sister was with her, and that she was already 17 years old at the time. Her alternative explanation, that she did not know the difference between almost being raped and being raped, was not accepted by the Board.
[5] The Board had further difficulties with the Applicant's testimony.
· In light of the attempted rape of her sister and alleged threatening letters and phone calls, the Board found it improbable for the Applicant's parents to have kept her in Kigali for almost 3 years after these incidents.
· The Board found it improbable that the Applicant's parents would have allowed her to continue school until July 2001, knowing that the man responsible for her sister's attempted rape had just been released a month before.
· The Board also considered it improbable that the Applicant would have been allowed to visit her friend in July 2001, knowing that this man was free.
· It was also found by the Board that the Applicant did not make sufficient efforts to corroborate her claim. Namely, she failed to produce any of the following documents: a medical report to corroborate the fact that she was in the hospital after her alleged abduction in 2001; a police report to corroborate the alleged complaints made by the Applicant's family; copies of letters containing threats against the Applicant and her family. The Applicant's explanations were found by the Board to be improbable. Accordingly, the Board surmised that the medical report and letters did not exist.
Analysis
[1] The Applicant points to section D of the Gender Guidelines, entitled "Special Problems at Determination Hearings". She argues that this section of the Gender Guidelines are extremely relevant to her, given that she was a minor at the time of her alleged abuse and at the time she made her refugee claim. Ignoring the Gender Guidelines, she submits, caused the Board to reject her explanations about the contradictions between her statements at the POE and the statements in her PIF. Ignoring the Gender Guidelines could constitute an error of law (Narvaez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), _1995_ 2 F.C. 55 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)), and therefore the decision as a whole ought to be quashed.
[2] The case law from this Court is clear that the tribunal need not specifically mention, in its reasons, every piece of evidence brought forward by the claimant (C.E.C.U. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 393). The case law from this Court also makes it clear that the Gender Guidelines are meant to be considered by the Board. In Griffith v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1999) 171 F.T.R. 240 (T.D.), at para. 27, it is suggested that, to have properly considered the Gender Guidelines, the Board must disclose a degree of knowledge, understanding, and sensitivity in judging a claimant's statements and conduct.
[3] In the matter at hand, the Board did, in my view, disclose the degree of knowledge, understanding, and sensitivity warranted by the Gender Guidelines when it considered the reasons for the discrepancy between the Applicant's statements at the POE and her statements in her PIF. The Board acknowledged the possibility that a young girl might feel intimidated in front of an immigration officer who is asking her personal questions. However, as another explanation for the discrepancy, the Applicant stated that she thought "almost raped" and "raped" were synonymous. It is open to the Board to decide, even in the face of feelings of intimidation, that in light of Ms. Ingabire's age and the presence of her sister, her explanations were not acceptable.
[4] It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that, at the end of the day, the Applicant bears the burden of proving her claim of persecution. In this case, she failed to produce for the Board any documentary evidence (i.e. copies of hospital records, police records, or threatening letters) to corroborate her story. The Gender Guidelines, in and of themselves, do not constitute evidence to support her claim.
[5] The application will be dismissed. Neither party proposed a question for certification. None will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is dismissed; and
2. No question of general importance is certified.
"Judith A. Snider"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-10111-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SIMONE INGABIRE v. THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: November 22, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider
DATED: November 26, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Micheal Crane FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Sharon Stewart-Guthrie FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Micheal Crane FOR APPLICANT
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada