Date: 20010607
Docket: IMM-4063-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 603
BETWEEN:
CYRIL MONDAY SIMEON
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
INTRODUCTION
[1] Mr. Cyril Monday Simeon (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "Board") dated June 29, 2000. In its decision, the Board determined the Applicant not to be a Convention refugee.
FACTS
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria. He arrived in Canada on July 9, 1999 and claimed Convention refugee status on the ground of perceived political opinion and membership in a particular social group, that is pro-democracy activists advocating for environmental improvements in the Delta region of Nigeria.
[3] The Board did not accept the Applicant's evidence about his arrest, incarceration, beatings, and release upon the money provision of bail. The Board further did not accept the Applicant's evidence about his ability to travel by bus from his village of Warri to Lagos at a time when the Government had imposed a curfew on the inhabitants of Warri.
[4] Finally, the Board concluded that the Applicant could safely return to the Nigeria Delta. The Board relied, in this regard, upon the Department of State Reports for 1991, issued by the Government of the United States of America. The Board did not mention any other documentary evidence nor offer any reason why it had to rely on certain documentary evidence as opposed to other written evidence which support the Applicant's claim.
ISSUES
[5] The Applicant raises two issues on this application:
1. Did the Board err in law by failing to consider the evidence of the Applicant?
2. Did the Board err in failing to properly assess the credibility of the Applicant in arriving at its decision?
APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS
[6] The Applicant argues that the Board erred in assessing his credibility because it failed to weigh the evidence. In other words, the Applicant submits that the Board failed to discharge its mandate which is to consider and assess the evidence before it, specifically, the testimony of the Applicant.
[7] The Applicant argues that the Board, in refusing to accept documentary evidence about country conditions which contradicted the evidence in the Department of State Reports, should have given a reason why it chose not to accept the alternative documentary evidence. The Applicant says that the report prepared by Amnesty International, which was before the Board, presents a different picture of country conditions in Nigeria than appears from the material relied on by the Board. The Applicant relies on the decision of Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 157 F.T.R. 35 (Fed. T.D.) in support of this argument.
[8] On the second issue, the Applicant argues that the Board improperly assessed his evidence by relying on extraneous evidence or by substituting its own opinion for those expressed by the Applicant. As an example, the Applicant points to the negative inference drawn by the Board about his amendments to his PIF when he substituted the word "bail" for "bribe" in explaining how he obtained his release from custody.
[9] The Applicant argues that the Board drew unreasonable inferences from his evidence.
RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS
[10] The Respondent argues that the credibility findings made by the Board were properly made in discharging its mandate and that the Applicant is essentially complaining about the conclusion drawn by the Board, not the process it followed in doing so.
[11] Second, the Respondent submits that the Board committed no reviewable error when it chose to rely on the Department of State Reports without mentioning other documentary material which presented different descriptions of the conditions in Nigeria.
[12] Finally, the Respondent argues that unless the Board's findings were patently unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, its decision should stand.
ANALYSIS
[13] The disposition of this application depends upon the standard of review applicable to decisions of the Board. In Conkova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 39, Justice Pelletier said at paragraph 12 as follows:
The standard of review of decisions of the CRDD is generally patent unreasonableness except for questions involving the interpretation of a statute when the standard becomes correctness.
[14] In the present case, the Board considered the evidence and drew conclusions. Unfortunately those conclusions do not favour the Applicant. However, in my opinion, those conclusions are reasonably supported by the evidence and there is no basis for judicial interference.
[15] Since I have found that the Board's findings on credibility are not patently unreasonable, it is not necessary to address the other issues raised by the Applicant.
[16] The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
ORDER
[17] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
June 7, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-4063-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: CYRIL MONDAY SIMEON
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2001
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: HENEGHAN J.
DATED: THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2001
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Kirk J. Cooper
For the Applicant
Ms. Negar Hashemi
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Kirk J. Cooper
Barrister and Solicitor
215-120 Carlton Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5A 4K2
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20010607
Docket: IMM-4063-00
Between:
CYRIL MONDAY SIMEON
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER