2024 RLLR 5
Citation: 2024 RLLR 5
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 23, 2024
Panel: Samantha Bretholz
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Sylvain N. Matandi
Country: Cameroon
RPD Number: MC1-03833
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01886
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] XXXX XXXX (the Claimant), a citizen of Cameroon, is claiming refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
Procedural Matters- Claimant’s Cognitive Condition
[2] The Panel has taken cognizance of a medical report submitted on behalf of the Claimant (the Medical Report).[1] The Medical Report outlines that the Claimant was admitted to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2022, regarding a general state of confusion and a reduction in memory for over a year. Following various tests, the Claimant was diagnosed with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Medical Report describes that the Claimant self-reported that her XXXX XXXX was become more and more frequent, that she had XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and she needs to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In addition, she has difficulty XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX- meaning she has difficulty XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.
[3] No particular accommodations were referenced in the Medical Report. Nevertheless, the Panel asked counsel whether he was requesting any specific accommodations to facilitate the Claimant and her ability to testify at the hearing. Counsel requested that questions should be posed in a variety of different fashions, if needed, and for the Panel to be mindful of her difficulty in recalling dates.
[4] It was clear to the Panel over the course of the hearing that the Claimant had some cognitive difficulties. She was unable to recall important dates- such as the date of her marriage, her length of stay in the United States of America (the US), and her speech was often disjointed. The Panel considered and applied Guideline 8: Accessibility to IRB Proceedings- Procedural Accommodations and Substantive Considerations[2] (Guideline 8) in conducting the hearing and in the rendering of this decision. In particular, the Panel was sensitive to the Claimant’s verbal cues- questions were posed in a variety of different fashions or rephrased when needed, and the Panel granted additional breaks, in particularly when the Claimant spoke about her head hurting.
MINISTER’S INTERVENTION
[5] On October 3, 2022, as amended on January 2, 2024 (together, the Minister’s Intervention)[3], the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (the Minister) intervened in this claim on identity, and credibility as it relates thereto, by submitting documents, questioning the Claimant, and making submissions.
[6] In the Minister’s Intervention, the Minister provides the following facts:
a. The Claimant entered Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, presenting her temporary resident visa in a Cameroon passport in the name of XXXX XXXX;
b. On July 24, 2020, the Claimant requested asylum in Canada;
c. In her immigration forms, the Claimant declared being XXXX XXXX born XXXX XXXX, 1955, in Cameroon;
d. Biographical information exchanged with the US indicates that:
i. On XXXX XXXX, 2003, XXXX XXXX, 2005, XXXX XXXX, 2007, and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2008, the Clamant made a request for permanent residency in the US under the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX XXXX 1955; and
ii. On XXXX XXXX, 2004, the Claimant entered the US utilizing a Cameroon passport under the name of XXXX XXXX born on XXXX XXXX, 1942.
e. Following a search by Canadian immigration authorities:
i. On XXXX XXXX, 2012, and XXXX XXXX, 2019, the Claimant requested a Canadian visa under the name of XXXX XXXX born XXXX XXXX, 1955;
ii. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013, XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, the Claimant requested a Canadian visa under the name of XXXX XXXX born XXXX XXXX, 1942;
iii. The Claimant obtained admission to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2019, and XXXX XXXX, 2020 under the name XXXX XXXX; and
iv. The Claimant obtained admission to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2013, under the name XXXX XXXX.
[7] At Question 1 and 2(a) of the Claimant’s immigration form (IMM-0008), the Claimant declared her name as XXXX XXXX and having utilized no other names.
[8] At Question 13 and 14 of the Claimant’s immigration form (IMM-0008), the Claimant declared being having been married once, but now divorced from XXXX XXXX.
[9] Publications from the Claimant’s Facebook page indicated that she had resided in the US, nevertheless, no mention of this residence was indicated in any of her immigration forms.
[10] Given the foregoing, the Minister submits that the Claimant has not established her identity.
ALLEGATIONS
[11] The Claimant’s allegations are fully set out in her Basis of Claim form (the BOC)[4]. In summary, like her parents, the Claimant became an active supporter of the Rassemblement démocratique du Peuple Camerounais (the RDPC), the ruling party in Cameroon. The Claimant officially joined the party in 2013 but had been involved with her parents for many years prior.
[12] In January 2018, after discovering some anomalies in the party, the Claimant left the RDPC to join the Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun (the MRC)- she was perceived as a traitor for abandoning her former party.
[13] In XXXX 2018, while the Claimant was in Douala, police came to her residence inquiring about the Claimant. The Claimant’s niece, who was present, advised her that the police had threatened the Claimant and that they would find her no matter where she is in Cameroon. A month later, the police returned to the Claimant’s home. They ransacked her place, rummaged through her documents and took her MRC membership card, and the passport under the name of XXXX XXXX, among other things.
[14] Fearing for her safety, in XXXX 2019, the Claimant fled Cameroon for Canada. Four months later, namely, in XXXX 2019, the Claimant returned to Cameroon after being advised by family members that things had calmed down politically.
[15] Nevertheless, shortly after her arrival, the Claimant was spotted by RDPC supporters, who alerted the police. While the Claimant was in hiding at the home of her sister, the police returned looking for the Claimant. Fearing for her safety, the Claimant quickly organized herself to leave Cameroon for Canada.
[16] Should the Claimant return to Cameroon, as a support of the MRC, the opposition to the current ruling party, she fears for her life and safety.
DETERMINATION
[17] Having considered the evidence in its entirety, including the Claimant’s testimony, and the submissions from both parties, the Panel finds that the Claimant is a “Convention refugee” pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA on account of her political opinion.
ANALYSIS
Identity and Credibility as it Relates to Identity
Relevant Identity Provisions
[18] Both the IRPA and the RPD Rules expressly state that, in order to be recognized as a refugee, a claimant must first establish his or her identity on a balance of probabilities. This obligation is expressly set out in section 106 of the IRPA and section 11 of the RPD Rules.
[19] Section 106 of the IRPA[5] states that:
“The Refugee Protection Division must take into account with respect to the credibility of a claimant, whether the claimant possesses acceptable documentation establishing identity, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of documentation or have taken reasonable steps to obtain the documentation.”
[20] Rule 11 of the RPD Rules[6] states that:
“The claimant must provide acceptable documents establishing their identity and other elements of the claim. A claimant who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they did not provide the documents and what steps they took to obtain them.”
General Principles
[21] A claimant’s identity can be established through his/her credible testimony, by way of documentary evidence or by a combination of both. The jurisprudence also establishes that the claimant must establish both her personal and national identity.[7] Therefore, it is not enough for the Claimant to establish that she is from Cameroon. She must also establish that she is who she says she is according to the name and identity that she has presented to the RPD. The onus is on the Claimant to establish her identity.[8]
[22] In addition to the passport utilized by the Claimant when she entered Canada in XXXX 2020 under the name of XXXX XXXX, the Claimant submitted various additional documents to support her identity, namely: (a) various former passports under the name XXXX XXXX;[9] (b) affidavit[10] and identity document of the Claimant’s daughter (passport[11] and birth certificate[12]); (c) Claimant’s birth certificate[13] and (d) temporary identity card.[14]
[23] The Panel has no reason to doubt the Claimant’s credibility as it relates to her identity. The Claimant credibility testified that she had been married on two occasions, the first was to XXXX XXXX and the second to Mr. XXXX. The Claimant stated that on both occasions, following the marriage, she had taken the last name of her spouse. Although she could not recall the date of her marriage to Mr. XXXX, the Claimant was able to testify that she married him in Cameroon, they resided together exclusively in Cameroon and that the marriage produced 3 children. Consistent with her testimony, one of the ancient passports of the Claimant issued on October 1987 indicates her name as XXXX née XXXX XXXX. Further, the Claimant submitted a copy of the birth certificate of her daughter, naming both the Claimant (as XXXX XXXX) and Mr. XXXX as the biological parents.[15]
[24] The Claimant could also not recall when she married her second husband, Mr. XXXX, nor the length of the marriage. She was though able to recall that she met and married him in the US, and the marriage did not produce any children.
[25] The Claimant was not able to recall how long she resided in the US, but the Panel was able to deduce that the Claimant had obtained a Cameroonian passport issued in the US in XXXX 2004 (indicating the Claimant’s address in Bronx, New York). She stated that she had arrived in the US shortly before the passport was issued. The Claimant explained that she had requested permanent residency in the US on multiple occasions, but they were never accepted, nor was the spousal sponsorship application from Mr. XXXX. This would then reasonably explain why the biographical information exchanged with US indicates that on XXXX XXXX, 2003, XXXX XXXX, 2005, XXXX XXXX, 2007, and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2008, the Claimant had made a request for permanent residency under the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.
[26] In the Claimant’s BOC, and as further elaborated by the Claimant in the hearing room, she explained that she had procured a fraudulent passport in Cameroon under the name of XXXX XXXX with a birth date of XXXX XXXX, 1942. The Claimant could not recall when she had obtained this alternative identity, but stated that many individuals who supported the RDPC had obtained a secondary identity in Cameroon. There was an ongoing concern that there would be a coup, that the political situation would get “hot” and it would be necessary to leave the country on short notice and under an alternate identity. The Claimant had commenced utilizing the name XXXX XXXX at least since the beginning of 2004, as the US indicated that she had entered the US in XXXX 2004 with a passport under said name.
[27] The Claimant was questioned by the Minister on the obtention of the Cameroonian passport issued in 2018 under the name XXXX XXXX, and utilized by the Claimant to enter Canada both in XXXX 2019 and again in XXXX 2020. The Claimant stated that she had attended at a passport office in Cameroon, presenting a copy of her identity card, a birth certificate and paid some money to the passport officials. As indicated by the Minister, the objective evidence provides that an original copy of the identity card and birth certificate must be presented by an applicant to obtain their Cameroonian passport. Given that the Claimant only indicated providing a copy, the Minister submits that no weight should be placed on the 2018 passport to establish the Claimant’s identity as its emission does not conform with the objective evidence.
[28] With all due respect to the Minister, the Panel does not read the objective evidence the same way. The objective evidence is clear that applicants requesting a Cameroonian machine-readable passport from abroad (underlining is Panel’s own for emphasis) must provide the original birth certificate and national identity card. With respect to obtaining a passport within Cameroon, all the objective evidence provides is that a “biometric passport can be delivered two days after the application is approved….Further information on the requirements and procedures for obtaining a passport in Cameroon could not be found within the time constraints of this Response.”[16]
[29] The Panel is reminded that it is well established in Canadian refugee law that a holder of a particular country’s passport is presumed to be a citizen of that country.[17] Similarly, it is a longstanding position in Canadian law and international law that a passport is prima facie evidence of citizenship.[18] Finally, it is also a basic rule “in Canadian law that foreign documents (whether they establish the identity or not of a claimant) purporting to be issued by a competent foreign public officer should be accepted as evidence of their content unless the Board has some valid reason to doubt of their authenticity.”[19] This Panel has no such doubt.
[30] The Panel finds that based on the Claimant’s credible testimony, the long series of passports provided by the Claimant under the name of XXXX XXXX dating back to 1987, a copy of her temporary national identity card under the name of XXXX XXXX (which conforms with the objective evidence)[20], the affidavit from her daughter[21], and in consideration of Article 106 of the IRPA, the Panel is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, as to both the personal (XXXX XXXX) and national identity (Cameroonian) of the Claimant.
[31] In coming to this conclusion, the Panel is cognisant that there were some significant omissions in the Claimant’s immigration documents- in particular, the Claimant failed to mention her marriage to Mr. XXXX, her residence in the US and failed to indicate that she had previously utilized another identity, namely XXXX XXXX. The Claimant’s testimony on the completion of the immigration documents and the BOC (both signed on the same date) were fraught with difficulty. The Claimant arrived in Canada in XXXX 2020 and the immigration documents, along with the BOC, were signed in July 2020. Nevertheless, the Claimant made some mention of meeting a man at the airport who had helped her complete the documents, elsewhere stating that she had discussed these documents on the airplane, and then later mentioned completing them with the assistance of someone else at a park in downtown Montreal. Later in the hearing, when the Panel reminded the Claimant that the BOC (signed at the same time as the immigration forms) stated that she was represented by counsel, and that counsel had helped complete the BOC, only then did the Claimant recall. The Claimant did state that she never completes the documents herself, and although she signed the forms, she did not review its contents for accuracy.
[32] Despite these problems in the immigration documents, the Panel finds that at least in part they can be attributed to her mental health challenges, as more fully set out in the Report. Given the foregoing, the Panel places more emphasis on her multiple passports submitted commencing in 1987, which in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds highly probative.
Credibility
[33] The Panel finds that despite some very apparent cognitive difficulties, the Claimant’s testimony was credible. The Claimant gave direct and spontaneous answers to the Panel’s questions and did not note any serious contradictions, inconsistencies or omissions (except as already outlined above with respect to the omissions as contained in immigration documents) that could have led it to doubt the credibility of the Claimant’s story.
[34] The Panel finds that the Claimant has credibly established the crux of her asylum claim- namely, that like her family, she had once been an active member of the RDPC, the ruling party in Cameroon. While residing in the US, the Claimant was disheartened with the ruling party, learning information as to the atrocities and abuse they had committed in the country. She began to distance herself from the RDPC, and following her return to Cameroon, began to support the MRC. The Claimant testified that her MRC membership card was taken by the police when they ransacked her home in April 2018 (along with various other documents including the passport in the name of XXXX XXXX).
[35] In May 2018, a notice to appear was issued against the Claimant.[22] The Claimant failed to appear on the date requested knowing it would mean imprisonment and torture and, in the meantime, remained in hiding while taking steps to leave the country (this meant obtaining a new passport and Canadian visitor’s visa). The Claimant was able to procure a Canadian visitor’s visa in XXXX 2019, and left Cameroon in XXXX 2019. She testified having utilized MRC contacts at the airport to leave undetected.
[36] In the hearing room, the Claimant testified that while she was in Canada it became widely understood that the leader of the ruling RDPC party, Paul Biya, had died. The Claimant took this opportunity to return to Cameroon in XXXX 2020. Upon her arrival, she described learning that Paul Biya’s death was not correct and in fact she was spotted by RDPC supporters at the airport. While the Claimant remained in hiding, police had gone to her home in Yaoundé looking for her. The Claimant departed for Canada shortly thereafter and made a claim for refugee protection a few months later.
[37] The Panel finds that despite this return to Cameroon, the Claimant provided a reasonable explanation. She had come to understand that the political environment had changed- believing that the leader of the ruling party had died, she was of the view that as an opponent it was safe to return. The Claimant reiterated on multiple occasions that as soon as she had credible evidence that Paul Biya has died, she hopes to return to Cameroon once again. The Panel finds that the Claimant’s return to Cameroon does not impugn her credibility or signify a lack of subjective fear.
[38] The Panel finds that the Claimant’s fear of returning to Cameroon is objectively well founded.
[39] In its report on human rights in Africa, Amnesty International states that:
As of December, at least 62 Cameroon Renaissance Movement (MRC) members and supporters remained in arbitrary detention in Yaoundé and Douala after they were sentenced by military courts for attempted revolution, rebellion, aggravated assembly or participation in the organization of an undeclared public meeting, in relation to their activism or their participation in banned protests in September 2020.[23]
[40] Human Rights Watch reports that:
Since late 2016, a cycle of civil protests there, followed by government repression, has escalated to hostilities between government forces and armed separatist groups, resulting in over 2,000 deaths. Others included members and supporters of the opposition party Cameroon Renaissance Movement (Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun, MRC).[24]
[41] Amnesty International provides that “the arrests, arbitrary detentions and prosecutions in military courts of opposition members who were peacefully gathering are the latest example of Cameroonian authorities’ crackdown on dissenting voices since late September 2020……The harsh repression of opposition and dissenting voices shows no signs of relenting in recent months. People simply exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and demonstration have paid a high price with prison terms based on trumped-up charges.”[25]
State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative
[42] The Panel has considered whether state protection or an internal flight alternative (IFA) would be available to the Claimant.
[43] The Panel finds that the Claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that she is a member of the MRC, and that she has been threatened by the police on numerous occasions in the past including by way of a notice to appear because of her political adherence. Given that the state is the agent of persecution, the Panel finds that the Claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.
[44] With respect to the possibility of an IFA, the law does not require a person to hide or abandon her commitment to political activism in order to live safely.[26] Given the Claimant’s past experience and the country condition evidence discussed above, the Panel finds that the Claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFAs of Douala and Bafoussam.
[45] Having found that the first prong of the IFA analysis is not met, the Panel will not undertake an analysis of the second prong.
CONCLUSION
[46] For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the Claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution should she return to Cameroon on account of her political opinion.
[47] The Panel therefore determines that XXXX XXXX is a “Convention refugee” and accepts her claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
[1] Document 4- P-1
[2] Guideline 8: Accessibility to IRB Proceedings- Procedural Accommodations and Substantive Considerations. Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: Effective Date October 31, 2023
[3] Document 5- Minister’s Intervention and Exhibits M-1 – M-11
[4] Document 2: Basis of Claim form
[5] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c27.
[6] Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR 2012-256.
[7] Warsame v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 596.
[8] Hadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 590.
[9] Document 4- P-2
[10] Document 4- P-7
[11] Document 4- P-7
[12] Document 4- P-8
[13] Document 4- P-11
[14] Document 4- P-12
[15] Document 4- P-8
[16] Document 3- National Documentation Package, Cameroon, 28 April 2023, tab 3.4: Requirements and procedures for obtaining passports in Cameroon and abroad (2013-March 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 25 March 2014. CMR104831.E.
[17] United Nations Handbook on Criteria for the Determination of Refugee Status, at para. 93.
[18] Adar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 1997 CanLII 16800 (FC), 132 FTR 35
[19] Rasheed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 587 and Teweldebrhan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 418
[20] Document 3- National Documentation Package, Cameroon, 28 April 2023, tab 3.1: The new national identity card, including the authority that issues the card, the conditions and documents required to obtain the card, and a detailed description of the card and its use; whether it may be applied for from abroad; whether the forme… Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 16 November 2016. CMR105627.FE.
[21] Document 4- P-7
[22] Document 4- P-4
[23] Document 3- National Documentation Package, Cameroon, 28 April 2023, tab 2.2: Cameroon. Amnesty International Report 2022/23: The State of the World’s Human Rights. Amnesty International. 27 March 2023. POL 10/5670/2023.
[24] Document 3- National Documentation Package, Cameroon, 28 April 2023, tab 9.6: Cameroon: Detainees Tortured. Human Rights Watch. 20 August 2019.
[25] Document 3- National Documentation Package, Cameroon, 28 April 2023, tab 9.9: Cameroon: Arbitrary detentions and military courts highlight the latest crackdown on opposition members. Amnesty International. 9 December 2020.
[26] Pimental Colmenares v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 749 at para. 14.