Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20050915

Docket: IMM-9307-04

Citation: 2005 FC 1270

BETWEEN:

FRANK NOSAKHARE OSAWARU

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

PHELAN J.

[1]    The Applicant has sought judicial review of the credibility findings made by the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("IRB") in denying his application for refugee status and protection. The Applicant also attacked the RPD's conclusion of adequacy of state protection.

[2]    It is well settled law that the IRB's findings of fact and credibility findings are entitled to the high level of deference - the standard of review being patent unreasonableness. See Aquebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.) and Leung v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1990), 129 N.R. 391 (F.C.A.).

[3]    The RPD assessed credibility negatively on at least seven (7) areas of the Applicant's claim. In each instance the RPD's findings were supported by documentary or oral evidence. Therefore, there was a factual basis for each conclusion.

[4]    With respect to each conclusion, there was no microscopic analysis of evidence, no undue weighting of factors or other errors in the RPD's approach.

[5]    It was not, for example, unreasonable to conclude that the Applicant's evidence that he had his hand fractured is a materially different injury from the police medical report of a swollen elbow. Nor was it unreasonable for the RPD to draw an adverse inference from the failure to mention key events in his evidence. Nor was it, for example, unreasonable to question the Applicant's credibility on his inability to name the hospital where he said that he spent nine days.

[6]    The Court can find no basis upon which to conclude that individually or cumulatively the RPD's conclusion was patently unreasonable.

[7]    The Applicant also objects to the RPD's conclusion that the objective evidence did not support the Applicant's claim. The issue is irrelevant in these circumstances as the Applicant did not make out that he had a basis for fear of persecution which would engage consideration of the issue of state protection.

[8]    However, had the matter been relevant, the Court would have been concerned that the RPD seemed to equate, the fact that the Nigerian government had taken serious steps to curb illegal cultist activities, with the legal presumption that state protection is adequate which includes a consideration of effectiveness.

[9]    For these reasons, the Court is not persuaded that the Applicant has met the high standard of review. Consequently, this judicial review will be dismissed.

"Michael L. Phelan"