Bah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 373 : Deportation Order Upheld Because Applicant’s Claimed Identity and Age Were Not Established

The Federal Court reviewed a deportation order issued after the applicant failed to satisfactorily establish his identity. The applicant later claimed that he was a minor and argued that only the Immigration Division had jurisdiction to issue the deportation order.

The Court dismissed the application because the applicant had presented himself as an adult when the order was issued, and his subsequently claimed identity and age had not been established.

Key Principle

Identity is fundamental to Canada’s immigration system. It affects admissibility, protection claims, public safety assessments, and the ability of authorities to properly assess an individual.

Where an applicant’s identity and age have not been established, a later claim to be a minor does not automatically invalidate an enforcement decision that was lawfully made based on the information available at the time.

Background

The applicant entered Canada using a French passport under the name Baroufoudine Attoumani and claimed to be born in 1981. When questioned about his identity, he continued to maintain that the passport was his.

An exclusion order was issued after he failed to satisfactorily establish his identity, and he was detained because he was considered a flight risk.

During a later detention review, he claimed that his real name was Saliou Bah, that he was a Guinean citizen, and that he had been born in 1998, making him a minor.

He argued that because he was allegedly under 18, the Immigration Division, rather than an enforcement officer, had jurisdiction to issue the deportation order.

Court Findings

The Federal Court rejected the applicant’s argument.

When the deportation order was issued, the applicant had consistently presented himself as an adult born in 1981. Based on that information, the enforcement officer had jurisdiction to issue the order.

The Court also rejected the argument that the applicant’s later claim of being a minor should be considered retrospectively. His claimed identity had not been confirmed, and an identification document he submitted was later found to have been altered.

The Court noted that the applicant’s placement in accommodation reserved for minors did not establish that Canadian authorities had accepted his claimed age. The evidence showed that the accommodation was precautionary while his identity remained unresolved.

Because his identity and age remained unconfirmed, the Court found no basis to invalidate the deportation order.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the deportation order.

Case Citation:

Bah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 373 CanLII