Docket: IMM-597-05
Ottawa, Ontario, this 8th day of December, 2005
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE von FINCKENSTEIN
BETWEEN:
SOLOMON UGBEKIL NDIDI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
( Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for precision and clarification)
[1] The Applicant, Solomon Ugbekil Ndidi, is a 29 year old Nigerian who alleges a well-founded fear of persecution because of his membership in a particular social group, the Otta Igabanke association. He fears persecution by the Itsekeri tribe and also fears the Nigerian police and military.
[2] His claim was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the ABoard@) on the basis of a lack of credibility. The Board pointed to several inconsistencies between Schedule 1 of the Port of Entry (APOE@) notes, the Personal Information Form (APIF@), and the testimony of the applicant.
[3] The applicant is seeking to set the Board=s decision aside on the basis of two points:
a) omissions in the POE notes cannot be held against the Applicant as they were made by the immigration officer and not by him; and
b) several findings of the Board are allegedly untenable upon a closer examination of the record.
[4] Point a) is evidently a legal point and should be determined on a standard of correctness while point b) involves findings of credibility which attract the standard of patent unreasonableness. (see Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315.
[5] A close examination of the Board=s decision and record reveals that any omissions held against the Applicant are omissions from the PIF or Schedule 1 of the POE notes. It is noteworthy that Schedule 1 was completed and signed by the Applicant. Thus, there is no room for Applicant=s argument that it is improper to hold omissions by the immigration officer against him given that any omissions in Schedule 1 are the Applicant=s own omissions. I refrain from expressing a view of whether the Applicant=s contention, if borne out by the record, would necessarily lead to a reversal of the decision.
[6] As to the findings of credibility, it is noted that the Applicant=s interview was somewhat confusing, and the decision of the Board is not a model of clarity either. However, the key findings for the lack of credibility are undisputed, namely:
a) the Applicant purported not to remember the name on the false passport that he used to fly to Canada;
b) the Applicant failed to mention the Itsekiri tribe in either Schedule 1 of the POE notes or the PIF, notwithstanding that they are the alleged group that he fears the most and which drove him to exile;
c) the contradictions between the Applicant=s work history as stated in the PIF, schedule 1 of the POE notes, and his testimony; and
d) the Applicant=s inability to tell his story in a coherent manner without contradictions.
[7] While some of the findings of the Board=s decision as challenged by the Applicant could be subject to different interpretations, these key findings are undisputed.
[8] Thus, I cannot find that when one takes the decision as a whole, the findings of lack of credibility are patently unreasonable. Accordingly, this application will not succeed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application be dismissed.
" Konrad W. von Finckenstein "
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
STYLE OF CAUSE: SOLOMON UGBEKIL NDIDI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATES OF HEARING: DECEMBER 7, 2005
AND ORDER BY: VON FINCKENSTEIN J.
APPEARANCES BY:
| Bola Adetunji |
|
|
|
|
| Leena Jaakkimainen |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Bola Adetunji Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario
|
|
| John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
|