The Story of Imo Ankara - From the Canadian Federal Court

	Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. March 21, 2010, 12:06:27 AM

News: Welcome to The African Diaspora (TAD) Forums website (www.theafricandiaspora.com/forums). TAD Forums is a community-based website with an objective to provide forums for articulation of African perspectives and ideas. In this context, and in the spirit of our slogan: "In community unity, lies our strength", this website welcomes ideas and input from anyone interested in the advancement of Africans everywhere. Specifically, this website focuses on African communities living in the diaspora—The African Diaspora. Please register today and have your say heard.

The African Diaspora (TAD) Forums

Migration, Travel and Tourism

Migration and Refugees Issues (Moderator: Forums Administration)

The Story of Imo Ankara - From the Canadian Federal Court

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

« previous next »

Pages: [1]

Author

Topic: The Story of Imo Ankara - From the Canadian Federal Court (Read 275 times)

anonymous
Starter

Offline

Posts: 1

The Story of Imo Ankara - From the Canadian Federal Court
« on: March 23, 2006, 06:10:16 PM »

This is a case from the Canadian Federal Court, about Imo Ankara (not his real name), a citizen of Burkina Faso, had applied for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board in which the Board found that Ankara not to be a Convention refugee—or a person in need of protection as defined in the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Ankara’s story starts in June 4, 2002, when he arrived in Canada and claimed for refugee status about three weeks later. In his story, he alleges a well-founded fear of persecution because of the police and his participation in anti-government demonstrations back home in Burkina Faso.

In its deliberations, the Board based its decision on a negative credibility finding. In questions of credibility, the Canadian court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Board unless the applicant can demonstrate that the Board's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a fickle manner or without regard for the material before the Board. Previous court cases have established that the Board is a specialized tribunal capable of assessing the plausibility and credibility of a testimony, to the extent that the inferences which it draws from it are not unreasonable and its reasons are expressed clearly and comprehensibly.

In evaluating the evidence presented before it, the Board concluded that demonstrations in questions occurred in 1999, but the Burkinabe security forces did not interfere. It is not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the Ankara is not credible since the primary basis of his claim is on his alleged arrests in 1998, 1999, and the demonstration in June 2000 whereas the evidence does not corroborate this. Ankara’s legal team points out that the Board erred by referring to a 1999 report for proof of a demonstration in 1998. Even if the Board had found there to be a demonstration in 1998, the documentary evidence indicates that there were demonstrations in December 2000, but none in June 2000, and it could not have been possible for the Ankara to have been arrested in 1999 because Burkanabe security forces did not interfere. It was concluded that these kinds of inconsistencies undermine Ankara's credibility.

Furthermore, Ankara’s testimony revealed that he received his passport and travel documents on the same day, however the passport is dated April 17, 2001 and the identity card is dated October 27, 2000. When the Board confronted him with this in his documents, Ankara did not give an answer that the Board considered satisfactory.
The Board also concluded that the applicant is not credible because he declared he stayed with his mother following the demonstrations in 2000, whereas his Personal Information Form indicated that he stayed with a friend, and did not mention his mother. The Court Judge reviewed the transcript of the Board hearing and concluded that there is nothing that indicates that Ankara declared he stayed with his mother after the incident in 2000. The Board's error in making this conclusion, however, is immaterial, as the evidence suggests the Board would have found Ankara not credible regardless of the existence of this statement.

After the alleged incidents of June 2000, Ankara stayed with a friend, made trips to Mali and Togo, and waited two years before leaving his country to seek refugee status in Canada, where he waited another three weeks before doing so. In noting this delay, the Judge said that a delay in seeking refugee status is not a decisive factor in itself, however the Board may take it into account when assessing the statements and actions of a refugee claimant. The judge further concluded that, in his opinion, the Board did not err in concluding that an Internal Flight Alternative existed, since Ankara stated that he experienced no problems while staying at his friends place. The Board was also not unreasonable in concluding that the applicant's actions were inconsistent with that of someone who fears persecution in his country, as the applicant could have claimed refugee status in either Mali or Togo and could have left Burkina Faso much earlier than 2002.

The judge finally concluded that it does not appear from the evidence that the Board committed any reviewable error in its disposition of the case, and for those reasons the judge dismissed the application for a judicial review of Ankara’s case.


	Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

Jump to:

Page created in 0.15 seconds with 21 queries.