Date: 19990210
Docket: IMM-783-98
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER NSOEDO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application pursuant to section 82.1(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, dated January 27, 1998, wherein the Refugee Division determined that the applicant was not a Convention Refugee.
FACTS
[2] The applicant is a 29 year-old citizen of Nigeria who claims Convention refugee status because of his political opinion and membership in a particular social group, "pro-democracy activists who are subjected to brutal attacks and repression by the military government in Nigeria."
[3] The applicant alleges a well-founded fear of persecution by the military junta of General Sani Abacha for his alleged involvement in posting and distributing literature critical of the military régime, and for joining a community youth group organized to oppose the military régime's transition program.
[4] The applicant alleges that while he was a student at the university of Nigeria, Nsukka, in February 1993, he was arrested and detained by the Nigerian authorities for seven days for campaigning against Mariam Babangida, the spouse of the military dictator of Nigeria at the time, Ibrahim Babangida, receiving an honourary doctoral degree.
[5] The applicant also alleges that he participated in demonstrations protesting the annulment of the results of the June 12, 1993, presidential elections in Nigeria. He claimed that he was "attacked and shot by security agents during a raid by the agents in an attempt to abort a planned demonstration by students in my school."
[6] The applicant alleges that his father, a former Chairman of a local government in Nigeria, was incarcerated in July 1994 and detained for almost six weeks. His father was among "countless other supporters and activists who were either killed or equally jailed" during this period.
[7] The applicant further alleges that he helped to campaign for the election of Dr. Asisi Asobie as head of the teacher's union, "a position he used to organize strikes that deeply shook the Abacha junta." He also claims that he "regularly posted and distributed literature which was critical of the government."
[8] The applicant alleges that his brother, Nmandi, was killed in August 1995 in order to silence his opposition to the Abacha regime. The applicant also suspects that he was the intended target of the regime because of his own active opposition against the military government. He alleges that after his brother"s death, he distributed leaflets accusing the government of being responsible for his brother"s death.
[9] The applicant alleges that in October 1996, he joined a group of youths in his community who were intending to oppose the Abacha regimes"s transition programme. Two days after a meeting of this community youth group, the claimant alleges that agents of the military government came to his home to arrest him. The agents arrested the applicant's father instead because the claimant went into hiding. Later, the applicant left the country.
DECISION OF THE REFUGEE DIVISION:
[10] The issues before the panel in this refugee claim are credibility, particularly the claimant"s identity as a pro-democracy activist, and the related issue of delay in claiming refugee status en route to Canada.
[11] The Panel has assessed the documentary evidence and the testimony of the applicant and has rendered a decision determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.
ISSUES:
| a) - Did the Panel err in law in determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee? |
| b) Is there an arguable issue of law upon which the proposed application for judicial review might succeed? |
ANALYSIS:
[12] The Panel has reviewed the evidence that was before it including documentary evidence and testimony.
[13] The Panel did not err in law in determining that the applicant's testimony was not credible. The Board examined several elements of the applicant's testimony compared with the exhibits. The Panel reviewed the implication that the research paper of the applicant, the medical report about the scars, the activities of the applicant as an activist, the death of his brother, and the law suit launched by his father against the police chief.
[14] The Panel determined that the applicant's testimony was not credible and to support its finding, provided detailed reasons in which it noted implausibilities in the applicant's evidence concerning certain aspects of the applicant's refugee claim.
[15] The Panel found that the evidence of the renewal of the applicant's passport, the ease with which the applicant was able to leave Nigeria, and the stamp "seen on departure" in the applicant's passport was not consistent with the applicant's testimony that the authorities were looking for him at the time he departed Nigeria.
[16] I do not see an arguable issue of law upon which this application might succeed.
[17] This Court should not interfere with the Refugee Division's assessment of credibility where an oral hearing has been held and where the Refugee Division has had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witness unless the Court is satisfied that the Refugee Division based its conclusion on irrelevant considerations, or that it ignored evidence. This Court should not interfere whether or not it agrees with the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division.
[18] In Sarwan Singh v. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A., September 3, 1986, A-259-85), the Court of appeal issued the following reasons:
| The Board had the advantage which this Court lacks of seeing and hearing the witnesses. We ought not to find that the Board erred in its assessment of credibility unless we have been satisfied that it based its conclusion on irrelevant considerations or ignored evidence which did not substantiate its finding. We have not been so satisfied. |
[19] In Lin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Justice Joyal stated:
| As far as the Board members were concerned, there were a number of elements in the applicant's story to satisfy them that she was simply not believable or credible. And an analysis of their decision has convinced me that there was sufficient material before them to justify such a conclusion. |
| ... |
Credibility is so much a matter of observations, insight, inferences drawn from any number of factors, that Courts will only intervene in clear and obvious cases.
CONCLUSION:
[20] For these reasons the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[21] No serious question of general importance will be certified.
"Pierre Blais"
Judge
TORONTO, ONTARIO
February 10, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-783-98
| STYLE OF CAUSE: CHRISTOPHER NSOEDO |
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: BLAIS J.
DATED: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. Kingsley Jesuorobo
For the Applicant
Mr. Godwin Friday
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Kingsley Jesuorobo
| Barrister & Solicitor |
968 Wilson Avenue
3rd Floor
| North York, Ontario |
| M3K 1E7 |
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
| For the Respondent |
| FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA |
| Date: 19990210 |
| Docket: IMM-783-98 |
| Between: |
| CHRISTOPHER NSOEDO |
| Applicant |
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
| AND IMMIGRATION |
| Respondent |
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER |