MC0-02955

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC0-02955 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision January 4, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Jillan Sadek Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal George Ghalo 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] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Haiti. She is 26 years old, she is unmarried and has one child who was born in Canada in 2019. [2] The Appellant indicates she left Haiti when she was six years old to go and reside with her father in France, in approximately 2000. In 2008, she moved from France to the United States where she lived with an aunt until coming to Canada in XXXX 2017. The Appellant had Temporary Protected Status (TPS) while living in the United States. The Appellant claimed refugee protection upon entering Canada. [3] The Appellant stated she fears returning to Haiti because Haiti is a dangerous country, she stated her cousin was raped in Haiti which was what prompted her family to send her away from the country when she was six years old. The Appellant also wrote in her Basis of Claim form that she had an uncle who was kidnapped in Haiti in an unrelated incident. The Appellant asserts that, having lived abroad, she would not have the skill set required to live in Haiti. [4] The Appellant did not have any of her previous passports or copies of her previous Haitian passports to present to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) to confirm the last time she entered Haiti. The Appellant confirmed that her mother and several of her siblings continue to reside in Haiti and that, if returned to Haiti, she would reside with her mother.1 [5] The RPD rejected the Appellant's claim as the Appellant's evidence was that her father was a French citizen at the time of her birth and that her father's name is mentioned on her birth certificate. The RPD noted that the information in the National Documentation Package on France stipulates that persons in such circumstances are entitled to French citizenship. When confronted with this information, the Appellant stated that she had never thought to try to obtain French citizenship but that she would not have problems living in France. The RPD concluded that as the Appellant was entitled to French citizenship and had not established a claim against France, her claim must be rejected. [6] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in finding that she may obtain French citizenship. [7] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.2 DECISION [8] I dismiss the appeal. I find that the Appellant has not established that she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS [9] I have carefully reviewed the entire record and have listened to the RPD hearing. I find the determinative issue is that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant may obtain French citizenship and has not established any claim against France. Determinative issue - French Citizenship [10] At her hearing, the Appellant was asked several questions relating to whether she could obtain French citizenship and reside in France. The Appellant's replies were unequivocal. The key questions and answers are reproduced here: MEMBER: Do both of your parents' names appear on your birth certificate? CLAIMANT: Yes. MEMBER: Would you be able to get a copy of your birth certificate today, if you were to ask in Haiti would somebody be able to send you a copy of your birth certificate? CLAIMANT: My mom I guess would.3 (...) MEMBER: Is your father a French citizen? CLAIMANT: Yes. MEMBER: How long has he been a French citizen? CLAIMANT: I don't know. MEMBER: Was he a French citizen at the time that you moved there with him? CLAIMANT: Yes. MEMBER: Was he a French citizen before you were born? CLAIMANT: Yes.4 (...) MEMBER: Are you afraid of anyone in particular in France? CLAIMANT: No. MEMBER: Would you be afraid of anything in France if you were to go there today? CLAIMANT: No.5 (...) MEMBER: If you were to request French citizenship today would you be able to obtain it? CLAIMANT: (Inaudible) my father probably. MEMBER: Have you ever looked into that? CLAIMANT: Sorry? MEMBER: Have you ever looked into getting French citizenship? CLAIMANT: No, I didn't. MEMBER: Why not? CLAIMANT: It didn't come to my mind.6 (...) MEMBER: And if you were to move to France today where would you live? CLAIMANT: With my brother. MEMBER: You have a brother in France as well? CLAIMANT: Yes. MEMBER: Would you be able to live in safety in France? CLAIMANT: Yes.7 (...) MEMBER: And do you know if that medication that you're taking is commonly available in Haiti? CLAIMANT: I don't know. MEMBER: Do you know if it would be available in France? CLAIMANT: It probably would. MEMBER: Do you think that in Haiti or in France you would have access to health services for continued treatment? CLAIMANT: In Haiti, no. In France, yes. MEMBER: So according to the objective evidence that we have on France, so there's a binder of information that's available about the country, and in that binder it says that "it's possible to obtain French nationality if you have one parent whose been French since you were born and his name is written on your birth certificate". So based on the information that you've provided to me today you would qualify to become a French citizen. Do you have any comments or responses to that information? CLAIMANT: No.8 [11] The Appellant was represented by a lawyer before the RPD and continues to be represented by the same lawyer in her present appeal. No new evidence was presented on appeal and no affidavit from the Appellant herself was presented with the appeal record. Nevertheless, in the Appellant's Memorandum, it is submitted that "even though the appellant declared during the hearing that her father had been a French citizen since before her birth, the appellant respectfully submits that it was an error committed on her behalf. The appellant did not want to induce the panel in error; in fact, she misinterpreted the panel's question in which she thought that she was being asked if her father did indeed have a French citizenship or not."9 [12] In the Appellant's Memorandum, it is further submitted that, in fact "her father, XXXX XXXX, received the French citizenship after her birth."10 [13] These vague statements are unsupported by any documentary evidence of the Appellant's father's French citizenship. The statements are not even supported by an affidavit from the Appellant. As such, I prefer the oral testimony of the Appellant at the RPD hearing, which was clear and unequivocal regarding her father's French citizenship. I therefore agree with the RPD that, based on the Appellant's evidence, she is entitled to French citizenship. The RPD did not err on this point. [14] In the Appellant's Memorandum, it is also submitted that the Appellant "has not been to France in over l0 years, and does not know how she will be seen and treated since she is of Haitian decent and that she suffers from bipolar disorder, in which she is afraid of being discriminated and treated differently."11 [15] The Appellant has not submitted any country condition evidence to support the notion that people of Haitian descent or people with bipolar disorder face serious problems of harassment or discrimination amounting to persecution in France. I also note that the Appellant herself indicated that she had no fears in returning to France and that she could live with her brother. [16] My own review of the country condition documentation leads me to conclude that, while some societal discrimination against Roma, Muslims and migrants from North and sub-Saharan Africa exists, discrimination against persons of African descent does not generally amount to persecution and avenues of redress exist.12 In terms of any discrimination or mistreatment of those with bipolar disorder, I was unable to find any references to such a problem in France. [17] I therefore conclude that the Appellant has not established any claim for international protection against France. CONCLUSION [18] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Jillan Sadek Jillan Sadek January 4, 2021 Date 1RAD-1, Transcript of the hearing before the RPD, January 7, 2020, p. 14 2Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 3 RAD-1, Transcript of the hearing before the RPD, January 7, 2020, p.10 4 RAD-1, Transcript of the hearing before the RPD, January 7, 2020, p.11 5 RAD-1, Transcript of the hearing before the RPD, January 7, 2020, p.12 6 RAD-1, Transcript of the hearing before the RPD, January 7, 2020, p.14 7 RAD-1, Transcript of the hearing before the RPD, January 7, 2020, p.15 8 RAD-1, Transcript of the hearing before the RPD, January 7, 2020, p.16 9 P-2, The Appellant's Memorandum, paragraphs 14-15, Appellant's record, p.13-14 10 P-2, The Appellant's Memorandum, paragraphs 23, Appellant's record, p.15 11 P-2, The Appellant's Memorandum, paragraphs 25-25, Appellant's record, p.15 12 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3, Archive - National Documentation Package, France, 29 November 2019, tab 2.1: ?France. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. United States. Department of State. 13 March 2019. Archive - National Documentation Package, France, 29 November 2019, tab 13.4: France. Country report: Non-discrimination. European Commission. Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers. Sophie Latraverse. 1 November 2019. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC0-02955 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 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 (January, 2020) Disponible en français