Abdulkadir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Abdulkadir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2018-03-20
Neutral citation
2018 FC 318
File numbers
IMM-3002-17
Decision Content
Date: 20180320
Docket: IMM-3002-17
Citation: 2018 FC 318
Ottawa, Ontario, March 20, 2018
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
BETWEEN:
SABRIN HUSSEIN ABDULKADIR
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an application under s 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act], for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada [RPD or the Board], dated June 8, 2017 [Decision], which refused the Applicant’s application to be deemed a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under ss 96 and 97 of the Act.
II. BACKGROUND
[2] The Applicant entered Canada from the United States as an unaccompanied minor on January 23, 2017. There is no dispute that she was born in Saudi Arabia in 2000. Her parents, however, are not Saudi Arabian citizens, and she is not entitled to Saudi Arabian citizenship. She says that her family still lives in Saudi Arabia, but that they fear that the Saudi government’s “Saudization” policy could result in her father losing his job. The Applicant says that her temporary residence status in Saudi Arabia is based on the sponsorship of her father’s employer.
[3] The Applicant alleges that her parents are citizens of Eritrea who have lived for years with fraudulently obtained Ethiopian passports. She claims that the Ethiopian passport she entered Canada with was similarly obtained through fraud, that she has no legal right to Ethiopian citizenship, and that her actual citizenship is Eritrean.
[4] Despite this, the Applicant claims that in 2015 her father decided that the Applicant, her mother and her younger brother should attempt to live in Ethiopia to see if it was possible to live there in case the family was deported by Saudi Arabia. She claims that in Ethiopia her family did not feel safe as their neighbours knew that her family was Eritrean. She says that she was not allowed to attend public school in Ethiopia and that her mother could not get an identity card that would allow her to access services there. As a result of these experiences and escalating violence in Ethiopia, the Applicant returned to Saudi Arabia in the summer of 2016 along with her mother and brother.
[5] The Applicant fears return to Ethiopia because her alleged Eritrean citizenship will leave her subject to deportation to Eritrea. She says that in Eritrea she will be subject to potential mandatory indefinite military/national service that she equates to slavery. She also fears that even if she were to be allowed to remain in Ethiopia, she will be subject to persecution there because of her Eritrean heritage.
III. DECISION UNDER REVIEW
[6] The RPD determined that there is insufficient credible evidence to establish that the Applicant is an Eritrean citizen. The RPD finds that the Applicant is an Ethiopian citizen and is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.
[7] The RPD notes that, even though the Applicant’s uncle had been appointed as her Designated Representative for the purposes of the refugee hearing, the Applicant is an unaccompanied minor and special consideration had to be given to Guideline 3 – Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues and Guideline 4 – Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution [Chairperson’s Guidelines]. Consequently, the RPD declines to draw any negative inference from inconsistencies between the Applicant’s Generic Application Form and Schedule A relating to her Ethiopian citizenship and her mother’s birthplace. The Applicant’s age, experience, gender and cultural background were also considered when assessing the weight given to her testimony.
[8] The RPD also notes that the Respondent intervened in the claim and presented evidence that the Applicant’s parents had submitted an application for Canadian permanent residence as overseas refugees. The information provided in that refugee application and in the Applicant’s mother’s interview with Canadian officials contradicts some of the information provided in the Applicant’s evidence.
[9] After discussing the difficulties of the Applicant’s claim, the RPD accepts that the Applicant’s family members are of Eritrean origin but finds that the Applicant and her parents are citizens of Ethiopia. Since the Applicant’s father arrived in Saudi Arabia in 1990, before the Eritrean independence referendum, and her mother arrived in 1998, the RPD finds that the Applicant’s parents arrived in Saudi Arabia as Ethiopian citizens and never forfeited their Ethiopian citizenship.
[10] The RPD agrees that the Applicant cannot be a citizen of both Ethiopia and Eritrea. The Applicant claims that, as her parents possess Eritrean national identity cards, they could not avail themselves of the 2004 Ethiopian directive that determined the residency status of Ethiopians of Eritrean origin living in Ethiopia. But the RPD finds inconsistencies in the evidence establishing the Applicant’s parents’ identities and does not accept that they possess genuine Eritrean identity cards. The RPD notes that the Applicant and her parents appear to hold genuine Ethiopian passports that they have used to return to Ethiopia multiple times and presented themselves as Ethiopian when in Saudi Arabia. The RPD therefore finds that it is more likely that they are ethnic Eritreans who retained their Ethiopian nationality. This retention of Ethiopian citizenship allowed the Applicant and her parents to obtain Ethiopian passports and travel to Ethiopia.
[11] The RPD examines inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the Applicant’s mother’s Eritrean national identity card and finds that unexplained discrepancies limit the weight that can be placed on the card. The identity card lists the Applicant’s mother’s date of birth as May 23, 1985. On the Applicant’s mother’s Ethiopian passport, her date of birth is listed as January 1, 1972. The Applicant’s Saudi Arabian birth certificate lists her mother’s date of birth as 1975. The Applicant initially testified that she believed her mother was born in 1985 but, when asked about the discrepancies in the documents, she stated that her mother had told her that she had falsified the date of birth on her Eritrean identity card to avoid paying taxes by appearing to be younger. The Applicant said that her mother’s true date of birth was the one on her mother’s Ethiopian passport. The RPD notes that this explanation is different from the one the Applicant’s mother gave in an interview with a Canadian immigration official in which she stated that her true date of birth is 1985 and her passport reflects an older date of birth to gain entry to Saudi Arabia.
[12] The RPD also has concerns about the Applicant’s and her Designated Representative’s inability to explain how the Applicant’s mother’s Eritrean identity card was obtained. The RPD points to documentary evidence indicating that to obtain an Eritrean identity card overseas, an applicant must register as an Eritrean living abroad and pay fees and taxes. There was no evidence that the Applicant’s mother had completed these steps and the RPD finds that it is unclear how she obtained the card in 2011.
[13] The RPD also examines inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the Applicant’s father’s Eritrean national identity card and finds that little weight can be placed on his card because of these discrepancies. The date of birth listed on the father’s identity card is May 9, 1971. Yet the date of birth listed on the Applicant’s father’s Ethiopian passport is January 1, 1960 and his Saudi Arabian resident card states that his date of birth is January 1, 1964. The Applicant’s Saudi Arabian birth certificate also lists her father’s date of birth as 1964. And the Applicant testified that she believed her father’s date of birth was May 28, 1971. The RPD notes that neither the Applicant nor her Designated Representative could explain how the Applicant’s father managed to update his Saudi residence permit when his Ethiopian passport lists a different date of birth. A letter from the Applicant’s father also fails to address the issue.
[14] The RPD finds that it must assign very strong weight to the Applicant’s Ethiopian passport based on her ability to use it to successfully travel to Ethiopia on multiple occasions and the lack of evidence on how her father was able to fraudulently obtain Ethiopian passports. Since an original passport is strong evidence of an individual’s nationality, the onus was on the Applicant to adduce evidence undermining the validity of her and her parents’ passports. Expert reports from Dr. John Campbell submitted by the Applicant indicate that it was possible to obtain an Ethiopian passport through bribery in the 1990s, but the RPD notes that the reports also indicate that passport issuance has been more restricted in recent years. And after 2006, Ethiopian consulates and embassies required individuals seeking an Ethiopian passport to prove entitlement based on a certified birth certificate issued in Ethiopia. The Applicant’s claim that her father obtained Ethiopian passports through bribery is not addressed in the letter from her father and the RPD finds that it has no information on the specific arrangements he used to obtain Ethiopian passports over the years. The RPD also notes that the Applicant’s current passport was issued on December 28, 2015, when the Applicant was residing in Ethiopia while her father remained in Saudi Arabia, and the Applicant used this passport to travel back to Saudi Arabia three days after it was issued. While the RPD does not fault the Applicant for her own lack of knowledge regarding how her father obtained the passports, the RPD draws a negative inference from the failure to provide further evidence on this issue after it was raised at the first hearing by providing a new letter from her father or calling him as a witness via teleconference.
[15] The RPD accepts that other documents submitted by the Applicant are strong evidence that her extended family is Eritrean or of Eritrean origin. But the Applicant’s father arrived in Saudi Arabia before Eritrean independence and the Applicant’s mother stated to Canadian immigration officials that she has family members residing in Ethiopia. The RPD finds that it is possible for the Applicant’s extended family to hold Eritrean citizenship while her parents do not, since it is possible that they chose not to forfeit their Ethiopian citizenship while in Saudi Arabia.
[16] Weighing the evidence of a valid and genuine Ethiopian passport against the Applicant’s parents’ Eritrean national identity cards, the RPD finds that neither the Applicant nor her parents lost their Ethiopian nationality as a result of changes to Ethiopian nationality law. The Board does not accept the claim in the Applicant’s father’s letter that he lost his Ethiopian citizenship by voting in the Eritrean independence referendum. And the RPD finds that use of a fraudulent Eritrean identity card is not implausible because the documentary evidence shows that fraudulent documents are available and prevalent outside of Eritrea. The RPD therefore finds that the Applicant’s Ethiopian passport carries greater weight than her parents’ Eritrean identity cards, and that it is more likely than not that she is a citizen of Ethiopia.
[17] Since the RPD does find that the Applicant’s family is of Eritrean origin, it also examines whether the Applicant would face persecution in Ethiopia. The RPD notes the lack of direct evidence from the Applicant’s mother about her experience in Ethiopia. The issue of whether Ethiopians of Eritrean origin who did not forfeit their Ethiopian citizenship experience trouble accessing public services is not directly addressed in the expert reports of Dr. Campbell. And the documentary evidence cited by the Applicant only refers to the situation of persons of Eritrean descent who were not expelled from Ethiopia but did forfeit their Ethiopian citizenship. The RPD finds that there is insufficient evidence establishing that the Applicant’s Eritrean origin would leave her unable to access public services in Ethiopia.
[18] The RPD is also unable to find that the Applicant would face a serious possibility of persecution in Ethiopia as an individual with Eritrean family origins. The documentary evidence indicates that most human rights issues relate to the period of the border conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia from 1998 to 2000. The RPD finds that the Applicant may face some limited degree of discrimination but that the treatment she might experience does not amount to persecution and that she is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.
IV. ISSUES
[19] The Applicant submits that the following issues arise in this application:
Is the RPD’s rejection of the genuineness of the Applicant’s parents’ Eritrean identity cards unreasonable?
Does the RPD unreasonably misread or misapply the documentary evidence?
Is the RPD’s application of the Chairperson’s Guidelines when making its factual findings unreasonable?
V. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[20] The Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 [Dunsmuir], held that a standard of review analysis need not be completed in every instance. Instead, where the standard of review applicable to a particular question before the court is settled in a satisfactory manner by past jurisprudence, the reviewing court may adopt that standard of review. Only where this search proves fruitless, or where the relevant precedents appear to be inconsistent with new developments in the common law principles of judicial review, must the reviewing court undertake a consideration of the four factors comprising the standard of review analysis: Agraira v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 at para 48.
[21] The RPD’s factual findings, including those regarding the genuineness of documents used to establish a claimant’s identity and its interpretation of the documentary evidence, are reviewable under the reasonableness standard. See Thopke v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 532 at para 28. In this application, the Applicant does not allege that the RPD misapplied the Chairperson’s Guidelines by failing to grant appropriate procedural accommodations during the hearings. Rather, the Applicant argues that the RPD failed to consider the Chairperson’s Guidelines when making its factual findings. Reasonableness is still the standard of review when reviewing the RPD’s application of the Chairperson’s Guidelines in making factual findings. See Manege v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 374 at paras 12-13 [Manege]; Aissa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1156 at para 56.
[22] When reviewing a decision on the standard of reasonableness, the analysis will be concerned with “the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process [and also with] whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.” See Dunsmuir, above, at para 47, and Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 59 [Khosa]. Put another way, the Court should intervene only if the Decision was unreasonable in the sense that it falls outside the “range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.”
VI. STATUTORY PROVISIONS
[23] The following provisions of the Act are relevant in this application:
Convention refugee
Définition de réfugié
96 A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,
96 A qualité de réfugié au sens de la Convention — le réfugié — la personne qui, craignant avec raison d’être persécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion, de sa nationalité, de son appartenance à un groupe social ou de ses opinions politiques :
(a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or
a) soit se trouve hors de tout pays dont elle a la nationalité et ne peut ou, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de chacun de ces pays;
(b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.
b) soit, si elle n’a pas de nationalité et se trouve hors du pays dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, ne peut ni, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut y retourner.
Person in need of protection
Personne à protéger
97 (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally
97 (1) A qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et serait personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la nationalité ou, si elle n’a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, exposée :
(a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or
a) soit au risque, s’il y a des motifs sérieux de le croire, d’être soumise à la torture au sens de l’article premier de la Convention contre la torture;
(b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if
b) soit à une menace à sa vie ou au risque de traitements ou peines cruels et inusités dans le cas suivant :
(i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country,
(i) elle ne peut ou, de ce fait, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de ce pays,
(ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country,
(ii) elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce pays alors que d’autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui s’y trouvent ne le sont généralement pas,
(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and
(iii) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de sanctions légitimes — sauf celles infligées au mépris des normes internationales — et inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles,
(iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.
(iv) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de l’incapacité du pays de fournir des soins médicaux ou de santé adéquats.
VII. ARGUMENT
A. Applicant
(1) Identity Cards
[24] The Applicant submits that the Decision fails to explain why the RPD is willing to overlook inconsistencies in the her family’s Ethiopian passports and her birth certificate, but simultaneously give little weight her parents’ Eritrean identity cards based on similar inconsistencies. The Applicant notes that the RPD accepts that the Ethiopian passports are genuine and does not express doubt regarding her Saudi Arabian birth certificate. The RPD does question how the Applicant’s father could renew his Saudi Arabian residency permit given that his Ethiopian passport contains a different date of birth, but does not otherwise indicate doubt over the genuineness of the residency permit. The Applicant says that the RPD’s rejection of the Eritrean identity cards because they contain inconsistent birth dates, similar to the above documents, is therefore illogical and inconsistent. The Applicant submits that it is equally logical to conclude that inconsistencies in the above documents indicate that the Ethiopian passports were obtained through fraudulent means.
[25] The Applicant submits that her age, her parents’ personal histories, and the cultural context that she grew up in makes it plausible that she does not know her parents’ true dates of birth. Considering that her parents were born during a period of civil war between Ethiopia and Eritrean liberation forces, it is also plausible that they do not know their own birth dates. The RPD “should not be quick to apply… North American logic and reasoning to the claimant’s behaviour”: Lubana v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 116 at para 12. This care extends to plausibility findings. See Valtchev v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 776 at para 7. The Applicant submits that inconsistent dates of birth are not evidence that foreign documents are entirely unreliable and that such inconsistencies do not impugn the reliability of her parents’ Eritrean identity cards. She says that without further evidence that the identity cards are fraudulent, the RPD’s dismissal of them as very strong evidence of her Eritrean nationality amounts to an implausibility finding and is unreasonable.
[26] The Applicant also says that the RPD cannot disguise this implausibility finding by framing it as finding that the identity cards could be fraudulent despite containing all the expected security features. The effect of the RPD’s finding was that the identity cards were treated as fraudulent, regardless of the language used to express that finding.
(2) Misconstruction of Documentary Evidence
[27] The Applicant submits that the RPD unreasonably relied on a selective reading of one piece of documentary evidence to speculate that her parents’ Eritrean identity cards might be fraudulent.
[28] The document in question is Response to Information Request [RIR] ERI104939.E, dated September 5, 2014, and titled “Eritrea: Prevalence of fraudulent identity documents, including national identity cards (2012-August 2014)”. The Applicant notes that the RIR itself states that “[i]information about the prevalence of fraudulent identity documents, including national identity cards, was scarce,” and says that such a disclaimer is not a standard feature of other RIRs and should have encouraged the RPD to proceed cautiously.
[29] The Applicant points to three statements from the RIR on which the Decision relies. First, the United States’ Department of State reports that Eritrean identity cards are “easily alterable.” But the Applicant notes that the RPD does not find that the cards were altered. Second, the observation by a researcher with Human Rights Watch that he “believes that there is an ‘underground market’ for fraudulent Eritrean ID cards in refugee communities abroad” does not disclose how the researcher came to this conclusion or the evidence the belief is based upon. And third, a Pennsylvania State University professor stated that “fake and fraudulent Eritrean identity documents are prevalent outside Eritrea,” but the quote in the RIR only discusses the situation in Khartoum and does not indicate that the professor was speaking about the situation more broadly.
[30] In Wang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 969 at para 49, this Court warned that
… a finding that one document is (or some documents are) fraudulent does not necessarily mean that all documents are fraudulent even in a situation where fraudulent documents are readily available. The RPD must make some effort to ascertain the authenticity of documents that appear to be genuine.
The Applicant says that her parents’ identity cards bear all the security features and hallmarks mentioned in a May 4, 2015 RIR on Eritrean national identity cards (ERI105158.E) and that there is no indication that the RPD attempted to verify the authenticity of the original cards the Applicant provided. In the absence of taking these steps, the Applicant submits that the RPD’s speculation that the identity cards could be fraudulent is unreasonable.
[31] The Applicant also submits that the RPD misconstrues the expert reports of Dr. Campbell. The Decision refers to a portion of Dr. Campbell’s report indicating increased restrictions on issuing new Ethiopian passports in more recent years to support the finding that the passports are strong evidence of the Applicant’s Ethiopian nationality. But the Applicant says that the passage actually supports the opposite conclusion. The Decision paraphrases Dr. Campbell’s observation that
Ethiopian immigration officials exercised their discretion in 2004 to refuse to renew some Ethiopian passports for individuals born in Asmara… [and] after 2006, Ethiopian consulates and embassies required individuals to provide evidence of entitlement based on a certified birth certificate issued in Ethiopia.
The Applicant notes that her father was born in Asmara, and her birth certificate was issued in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, increased scrutiny by Ethiopian officials means that it is more rather than less likely that the passports were obtained by fraud.
(3) Chairperson’s Guidelines
[32] The Applicant submits that the RPD turns the Chairperson’s Guidelines on their head by unreasonably dismissing her sworn testimony because she did not know her parents’ birth dates or how her father obtained the family’s Ethiopian passports.
[33] Guideline 3 gives guidance on assessing the evidence of child refugee claimants. It states that when encountering gaps in the evidence, “the panel should consider whether it is able to infer the details of the claim from the evidence presented.” Guideline 4 states that “spouses, daughters or mothers may find themselves in a difficult situation when questioned about the experiences of their male relatives.” This Court has observed that “the Gender Guidelines exist, in part, to ensure that social, cultural, traditional and religious norms do not interfere with the proper assessment of an applicant's credibility”: Diallo v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1450 at para 33, quoted in Manege, above, at para 32. For the Chairperson’s Guidelines to be meaningful, the RPD must assess a claimant’s testimony in a manner alert and sensitive to gender and the social, cultural, economic and religious norms of the claimant’s community. See Bennis v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 968 at para 14; Odia v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 663 at para 9. The Applicant says that the proper approach goes beyond mere procedural accommodation and that the Chairperson’s Guidelines expressly contemplate gaps in evidence and the reasons they may exist.
[34] The Applicant says that considering her age, gender and cultural background, it is unsurprising that she has little knowledge of her parents’ birth dates or how her father obtained Ethiopian passports. For the RPD to then conclude that her testimony that the passports were obtained by fraud is insufficient to establish that fact defeats the purpose of the Chairperson’s Guidelines. The Applicant says that another example of this approach can be seen where the RPD discounts her testimony on the problems her mother had accessing services in Ethiopia. This testimony corroborates the claim that Ethiopian authorities would not recognize her family as Ethiopian citizens and its rejection by the RPD is unreasonable. She says that the Board should have considered the reasons for her lack of knowledge and should have started from the position that sworn testimony on what she did know is presumed to be true. The Applicant submits that absent a negative credibility finding, given the totality of the documents submitted, the Decision is therefore unreasonable as the absence of corroborating documents does not justify denial of a refugee claim. See Durrani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 167 at para 6.
B. Respondent
[35] The Respondent submits that the RPD reasonably performed its adjudicative function when confronted with compelling evidence of the Applicant’s Ethiopian citizenship and some evidence of her Eritrean citizenship that suffered from formal issues. The Applicant has a recently issued Ethiopian passport that she has used for travel and only a theoretical claim that she lost her Ethiopian citizenship. Her claim that her Ethiopian passport is fraudulent is not based on direct evidence and her father, who could have provided direct evidence on how the Ethiopian passports were obtained, was not called on to testify.
[36] The Respondent says that the RPD’s finding that the Applicant and her family would not have lost their Ethiopian nationality is supported by The Eritrean Nationality Proclamation No 21/1992.
[37] The Respondent also says that the Applicant provided no explanation as to how or why her parents were issued Eritrean identity cards. The Decision properly notes that RIR ERI104939.E indicates that fraudulent identity cards are an issue. The Respondent points out that there was no confirmation that the Applicant’s parents followed the process for Eritrean identity card issuance described in the documentary evidence.
[38] The Respondent submits that placing considerable weight on the existence of the Applicant’s apparently genuine Ethiopian passport is consistent with the approach set out in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, (December 2011) at para 93 [UNHCR Handbook]. The UNHCR Handbook provides that “a passport creates a prima facie presumption that the holder is a national of the country of issue” and that “[a] person holding a passport showing him to be a national of the issuing country, but who claims that he does not possess that country’s nationality, must substantiate his claim” (at para 93). This Court has held that a “passport is evidence of citizenship unless its validity is contested. The onus is then on the applicant to prove that the applicant is of a different citizenship than that indicated in the passport”: Adar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (1997), 132 FTR 35 at para 14 (TD) [Adar]. See also Mathews v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1387 at para 11 [Mathews]. And claiming that the passport was issued for purposes of travel convenience is insufficient to rebut the presumption of nationality. See Yah Abedalaziz v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1066 at para 42 [Yah Abedalaziz].
[39] The Respondent accepts that the Applicant did contest that her Ethiopian passport was evidence of nationality, but says that the RPD reasonably determined that the presumption was not rebutted. The RPD reasonably weighs its findings that the Applicant’s parents’ Eritrean identity cards are unreliable, that the Applicant’s family did not lose Ethiopian citizenship because they left Ethiopia before Eritrean independence, and that the Eritrean nationality of the Applicant’s extended family members is not compelling evidence of the Applicant’s nationality. The Respondent says that the RPD reasonably finds that documentary proof supplied by the Applicant is unsatisfactory and that the RPD is entitled to choose the evidence that it prefers when confronted by conflicting evidence. See Wijekoon v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 758 at para 49. The Applicant’s ability to point to some evidence which supports an alternate conclusion does not render the Decision unreasonable. See Matte v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 761 at para 115.
[40] The Respondent also submits that, despite the Applicant acknowledging that the Decision is reviewable under a reasonableness standard, the Applicant’s arguments amount to inviting the Court to apply a correctness standard. The Respondent says the Applicant is merely disputing and arguing the RPD’s assessment and weighing of the evidence and is paying lip service to the standard of review by asking the Court to reweigh that evidence.
(1) Identity Cards
[41] The Respondent submits that the RPD conducts a more global assessment of the evidence than the Applicant acknowledges. The RPD assesses the totality of the evidence when concluding that the Applicant is an Ethiopian citizen. The Decision examines whether the Applicant’s parents’ Eritrean identity cards are genuine but reasonably concludes that the Ethiopian passports are the best evidence of the Applicant’s citizenship.
[42] The Respondent says that the RPD is aware that the passports contain inconsistencies similar to the identity cards. But the RPD notes that the passports were renewed multiple times, were reissued and used recently, and that the evidence that they were fraudulently obtained was not supported by direct evidence from the Applicant’s father. The Respondent submits that the Applicant is essentially arguing that the RPD should have accepted her view because the validity of both passports and the identity cards could be questioned. This amounts to a correctness review that is inconsistent with the approach outlined in the UNHCR Handbook and the jurisprudence of this Court.
[43] The Respondent also says that the Applicant’s argument that the RPD made an unreasonable implausibility finding is irrelevant because the RPD did not make any implausibility finding.
(2) Misconstruction of Documentary Evidence
[44] The Respondent submits that the RPD reasonably relies on the documentary evidence to find that the Applicant’s parents’ Eritrean identity cards could be fraudulent. Considering the lack of evidence on how the identity cards were obtained, the RPD declines from making any definitive finding on this point and there is no reviewable error in the RPD’s finding that the cards could be fraudulent. This finding is simply part of the RPD’s weighing exercise when comparing the identity cards to the passports.
[45] The Respondent notes that the Applicant is before the Board and this Court insisting that her passport is fraudulent but simultaneously asking the Court to rebuke the RPD for finding that the identity cards could be fraudulent.
[46] The Respondent says that Dr. Campbell’s reports provide support both for and against the authenticity of Ethiopian passports. The Respondent says that the RPD is entitled to construe the evidence submitted. The RPD’s reliance on the portions that do not favour the Applicant’s position is not a reviewable error. The best evidence on how the passports and other identity documents were procured would have been testimony from the Applicant’s parents given by teleconference. The Respondent submits that this evidence was not provided by the Applicant for tactical reasons and the result is that the validity of her passport has not been rebutted.
(3) Chairperson’s Guidelines
[47] The Respondent says that the RPD applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines by not holding the Applicant’s inconsistent testimony against her and relaxing rules on the admission of evidence. But application of the Chairperson’s Guidelines does not eliminate the responsibility of the Applicant’s Designated Representative and counsel to produce needed evidence. In submissions before the Board, the Applicant had argued that given her age and gender she should not be punished for a lack of knowledge of information beyond her control. The Respondent says that the RPD acquiesced to this request by relying primarily on the documentary evidence. The Respondent submits that the Applicant was not a good witness, and that the RPD’s decision not to focus on inconsistencies in her oral testimony is evidence that the Chairperson’s Guidelines were followed.
[48] The Respondent also submits that having acquiesced to the Applicant’s request, the RPD cannot now be held to have been unreasonable when placing little weight on the Applicant’s testimony. The Respondent says that the Applicant is seeking to have it both ways when arguing that in the absence of an adverse credibility finding, the RPD should have accepted the probative value of her testimony. The Chairperson’s Guidelines do not remedy the insufficiency of evidence to support the Applicant’s claim of Eritrean nationality and cannot be used to decline to produce witnesses and evidence.
[49] The Respondent notes that the only evidence introduced to rebut the presumption that the Ethiopian passports are valid is that the Applicant’s father paid a bribe for them. The Respondent points out that a person forced to pay a bribe to a corrupt official to obtain a passport can still be a citizen of that country. And as the RPD does not make an adverse finding arising from the Applicant’s oral testimony, the case law cited by the Applicant regarding unreasonable credibility findings made against minor claimants is not on point.
[50] The Respondent also says that the RPD does not violate the Chairperson’s Guidelines in discounting the Applicant’s testimony concerning access to social services in Ethiopia. The Applicant insists that she is a citizen of Eritrea, and addressed her submissions to the risk of persecution in Eritrea. The Respondent submits that it would be “very odd” for the Applicant to obtain judicial review based on a risk in Ethiopia when she insists that she is a citizen of Eritrea and submitted to the RPD that Ethiopia is not a country of nationality for the purposes of ss 96 and 97. Regardless, the Respondent also submits that the RPD gives reasons for finding that the Applicant would not be at risk in Ethiopia and that this finding is reasonable.
VIII. ANALYSIS
A. Introduction
[51] At the heart of this Decision are the following findings and observations:
[12] The claimant presented a very difficult case. She claims that she is a citizen of Eritrea only but that she has never resided in Eritrea, nor has she ever possessed an Eritrean passport or any Eritrean identity documents. Rather, she was born in Saudi Arabia and lived her entire life as if she were a citizen of Ethiopia. She, along with her parents and brother, all possessed Ethiopian passports and presented themselves as Ethiopian citizens to the Saudi government. The claimant alleges that in fact her parents obtained their Ethiopian passports and renewed their passports through corruption and bribery in order to avoid being deported to Eritrea in the event that they lost their status in Saudi Arabia.
[13] Although I accept that the claimant’s family members are of Eritrean origin, I find that the claimant and her parents are citizens of Ethiopia, on a balance of probabilities. The claimant’s father arrived in Saudi Arabia in 1990, prior to the referendum on Eritrean independence. The claimant’s mother arrived in Saudi Arabia in 1998, according to the evidence in her overseas refugee application. I find that it is more likely than not that both of the claimant’s parents arrived in Saudi Arabia as Ethiopian citizens and that they chose not to forfeit their Ethiopian citizenship. I find that it is more probable than not that they have therefore maintained their Ethiopian nationality throughout their many years in Saudi Arabia.
…
[22] The difficulty, however, is that the evidence around the identity of the claimant’s parents was fraught with inconsistencies and irregularities, which were not adequately explained by the claimant even though she was given ample opportunity to provide evidence on these matters. Ultimately, I am unable to accept, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant’s parents are in possession of genuine Eritrean national identity cards. This distinguishes the facts of this case from the facts set out in the other Refugee Protection Division decisions upon which counsel relies, as well as the expert opinions provided by Dr. John Campbell in Exhibit 7.
[23] Al