TB8-10990

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-10990 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX) Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision August 29, 2019 Date de la décision Panel E. Bobkin Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Ochiemuan Okojie Barrister and Solicitor Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), who was born in Ghana and is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated April 5, 2018, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant requests that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the RPD's decision and substitute a positive decision in its place. DETERMINATION [2] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The determinative issue is the Appellant's entitlement to Ghanaian citizenship. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW [3] The Appellant was born in Ghana and became a naturalized citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, which he alleges caused him to lose his Ghanaian citizenship. He alleges that he encountered problems as a XXXX in Trinidad and Tobago because he was accused XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX by a XXXX gang. Following this, he alleges his son was shot by the gang and that Trinidadian authorities did not assist. [4] The Appellant's claim was heard on April 5, 2018 and rejected the same day. The RPD determined that the Appellant had not credibly established his allegations or, in the alternative, that he was entitled to citizenship in Ghana, and that he had not alleged a risk there and could safely return there. The Appellant alleges that the RPD erred in the following ways: (a) The RPD mischaracterized elaboration in testimony as an omission from the Basis of Claim (BOC); (b) The RPD failed to consider the reasonable explanation for delay in departure and reavailment; (c) The RPD failed to consider the reasonable explanation for delay in claiming in Canada; (d) The RPD erred in rejecting corroborative documents; and (e) The RPD erred in finding Ghana as a country of reference. [5] The Appellant did not submit any new evidence on appeal and did not request an oral hearing. As there is no new evidence, I cannot convene a hearing under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. ROLE OF THE RAD [6] When reviewing the RPD's decision, the RAD is required to independently assess whether the RPD was correct in relation to each alleged error of fact, law or mixed fact and law.1 I may defer to the RPD on a finding of credibility on oral evidence where the RPD had a meaningful advantage in the circumstances. In this instance, I am reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of correctness, as I do not find the RPD enjoyed any meaningful advantage on a finding of credibility on oral evidence. ANALYSIS [7] The determinative issue in this appeal is that the RPD correctly concluded that the Appellant has not established a significant impediment to re-acquiring his Ghanaian citizenship. Accordingly, I am not addressing the RPD's finding on the claim against Trinidad and Tobago. [8] The Appellant was born in Ghana and was a Ghanaian citizen by birth.2 There is no dispute over this.3 Furthermore, the Appellant obtained citizenship of Trinidad and Tobago by naturalization.4 At the time he obtained this citizenship, Ghana did not recognize dual nationality, and therefore he lost his Ghanaian citizenship. There is no dispute over this either. The question before the RPD was whether the Appellant was entitled to re-acquire his citizenship and what steps were necessary to do so. [9] The RPD found that, pursuant to the jurisprudence, the onus is on a refugee claimant to establish that, where he is entitled to nationality of a country and there is a significant impediment to obtaining the citizenship, he has made reasonable efforts to overcome this impediment such that obtaining nationality is not within his control.5 The RPD considered the Appellant's testimony, which was that he had asked Ghanaian immigration officers in Ghana in 2014 about getting his citizenship back and was told it would take a long time, about five years or more, against the evidence in the documentation, which stated that Ghanaian citizenship can be re-obtained by renouncing the other nationality and that this could be done by filling out a form at the embassy.6 The RPD found that, given that the Appellant had not offered to renounce his Trinidadian citizenship or gone to the embassy in Canada to fill out the form, he had not established a substantial impediment based on what he was told by Ghanaian immigration officers or the Ghanaian community.7 [10] The RPD correctly stated the law. The law on citizenship and country of reference for a refugee claim states that a claimant must do everything within their power or control to access available citizenship and that, where a claimant alleges the existence of an impediment to exercising rights of citizenship, they must establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of an impediment which may reasonably be capable of preventing exercise of rights, as well as reasonable efforts to overcome the impediment which were unsuccessful.8 [11] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by concluding that the Appellant had not made any effort to get back his citizenship and erred in concluding that Ghana was a country of reference in the claim.9 The Appellant does not dispute the RPD's finding that he can re-acquire Ghanaian citizenship if he renounces his Trinidadian citizenship, but he argues that the requirement to renounce Trinidadian citizenship is a significant impediment and that the Appellant looked into the process and that it was lengthy, and the RPD erred by failing to consider this.10 I am not persuaded by these arguments. [12] First, the RPD considered whether requiring the Appellant to renounce his citizenship was a significant impediment and concluded that it was not, given that the Appellant was claiming refugee protection against Trinidad and Tobago, and, therefore was arguing that he could not return to Trinidad and Tobago.11 I see no error in this. If the RPD or the RAD concluded that the Appellant could not acquire Ghanaian citizenship and subsequently found that the Appellant was a Convention refugee against Trinidad and Tobago, the Appellant could not return to that country or he could risk cessation of his refugee protection.12 I accept that the Appellant, per his testimony, has connections to Trinidad and Tobago because his son resides there, and he has businesses there, but having testified to this, the Appellant still stated he cannot go back to the country.13 Accordingly, asking the Appellant to renounce the citizenship of a country which, by his own account, he cannot return to, is not a significant impediment. [13] Second, contrary to the Appellant's submission, the RPD considered the Appellant's testimony that he was told by Ghanaian immigration officials that re-acquiring his citizenship would take a long time, upwards of five years, and it found that, on a balance of probabilities, the officials did not take his request seriously because he did not offer to renounce his citizenship and that other evidence on file indicated that the only impediment was completing a form at the Ghanaian embassy in Canada, and the Appellant had not done so.14 Again, I see no error in this conclusion. The RPD considered the Appellant's explanation but rejected it. I agree; the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he has taken reasonable efforts to re-obtain his citizenship. [14] I reviewed the testimony. The Appellant explained that he went back to Trinidad in 2014, and when he went back, he was given two months to stay in the country, and at that time, he asked about his citizenship, and he was told that, because he had a Trinidadian passport, it would be difficult to get his citizenship back; there would be a long queue.15 Accordingly, the advice that the Appellant got was premised upon him not having renounced his Trinidadian citizenship. As noted by the RPD, and evidenced by the testimony, he did not make enquiries in Canada and did not take steps to renounce his citizenship in the approximately two years he was in Canada before his refugee hearing.16 [15] I further find that the Appellant has not established that he took reasonable steps to overcome any impediment to citizenship because he has taken no steps since his decision was issued to reobtain his Ghanaian citizenship in Canada since his refugee claim was rejected. The Notice of Decision in this case was issued on April 23, 2018.17 More than one year has passed. The Appellant has not provided any evidence on appeal to suggest that he enquired at the Ghanaian embassy in Canada about re-acquiring his citizenship. As noted above, the onus is on the claimant to take all steps within his control to reobtain his citizenship. He has not done so here. Accordingly, I concur with the decision of the RPD that the Appellant has failed to establish a significant impediment to re-acquiring his Ghanaian citizenship or reasonable steps to overcome any impediments which may exist. [16] As the Appellant has not asserted any claim against Ghana, and I concur with the RPD's finding that Ghana is a country of reference, I find that the RPD's decision is correct. I will not assess the RPD's reasons as they relate to the claim against Trinidad and Tobago. CONCLUSION [17] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) "E. Bobkin" E. Bobkin August 29, 2019 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 84-85. 3 Oral testimony of the RPD hearing, from 00:22:44 to 00:23:23. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 18. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 9, RPD's Reasons and Decision. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD recordRecord, at pp. 9-10, RPD's Reasons and Decision. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record pp. . 8 M.C.I. v. Williams, Manzi (F.C.A., no. A-241-04), Décary, Létourneau, Nadon, April 12, 2005, 2005 FCA 126. Reported: Williams v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 3 F.C.R. 429 (F.C.A.); and Tretsetsang, Chime v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-67-14), Mosley, April 14, 2015, 2015 FC 455; Tretsetsang, Chime v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-260-15), Ryer, Webb, Rennie (dissenting), June 9, 2016, 2016 FCA 175. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 67-68. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 67-68. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 10, RPD's Reasons and Decision. 12 IRPA section 108. 13 Oral testimony of the RPD hearing, from 00:44:20 to 00:48:17. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 15 Oral testimony 00:41:00 to 00:43:48. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 9-10, RPD's Reasons and Decision; and oral testimony of the RPD hearing, from 00:43:48 to 00:48:17. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 1. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-10990 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 3 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français