Date: 20010706
Docket: IMM-5279-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 773
BETWEEN:
ADEMOLA KELVIN OYEBADE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board), dated September 12, 2000, which determined that Mr. Ademola Kelvin Oyeba (the applicant) was not a Convention refugee.
[2] The applicant is a 26-year-old citizen of Nigeria who claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of religion and membership in a particular social group, namely those facing persecution at the hands of members of a cult called "Power of Darkness" who enjoy state complicity in persecution.
[3] The applicant alleged that while a second year student at the University of Ife in Nigeria, he was invited by a student to a meeting of an organization called "Power of Darkness". He had no knowledge at that time that the organization was, in fact, a cult comprised of criminal students.
[4] The applicant attended the meeting and saw different types of weapons and ammunition. He immediately voiced his opposition and disinterest in joining but he was advised that he could not refuse membership because he had seen their secret. He was told specifically that he should either join the cult or face unexpected death.
[5] The initiation consisted of a donation of blood which was given to all present to drink. The applicant alleged that after the meeting he advised his mother of the events who reported them to the school authorities and the police. The applicant and his mother were told that he should get the names of the students involved. The applicant was able to get the names and nicknames of some of the cult members, most of whom were children of top military and police officers.
[6] The applicant alleged that he was called for a meeting with the cult members but refused to attend. Subsequently, cult members allegedly attacked the applicant in his room at the university. The cult leader, whose father is allegedly the divisional commander of the police, ordered three other cult members to beat him up for trying to leak the cult's secret. The applicant alleged that he was stabbed repeatedly and had to be rushed to hospital. The applicant's mother went straight to the police who assured her they would respond, but nothing happened.
[7] Three days after returning to school, four policemen allegedly arrested the applicant accusing him of spreading dangerous rumours about police and army officers' children. He alleged that he was locked up with criminals and beaten until blood came out of his mouth. He remained in detention until he was able to get out through the payment of a bribe. In the meantime, the applicant's sister was allegedly raped by people who told her that "either your brother or you have to go in for it."
[8] The applicant alleged that he attempted to obtain admission to another university through an old friend of his father but did not succeed. Even outside school, he continued to receive threats and was harassed.
[9] The applicant ran away from Nigeria on January 25, 1999, to avoid death at the hands of cult members over whom the Nigerian government has no control and with whom the Nigerian government acts in complicity. The applicant made a claim for refugee status upon his arrival in Canada on January 27, 1999.
[10] In its decision dated September 12, 2000, the Board determined that there existed no nexus between the applicant's claim and the definition of Convention refugee; the Board found that what the applicant fears is criminal conduct.
[11] In any event, the Board did not find that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Nigeria due to significant credibility concerns with respect to the applicant's claim, including the allegations that the state acts in complicity in the criminal activities of cults and that protection is unavailable to him.
[12] Although there could be issue concerning the correctness of the Board's finding regarding the nexus between the applicant's claim and a convention ground, nevertheless, the Board made findings regarding the credibility and the plausibility of the evidence which were reasonably open to it on the record.
[13] The Board, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the applicant's credibility, the plausibility of testimony and the weight of evidence. (See, e.g., Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.); He v. M.E.I., [1994] F.C.J. No. 1107 (F.C.A.)). The Board is entitled to take into account discrepancies between the applicant's PIF and notes taken by a port of entry immigration officer. As well, it is entitled to draw a negative inference by reason of the omission of significant events in the applicant's PIF.
[14] Further, contrary to the applicant's submission, the Board did not require state complicity in persecution but instead rejected the applicant's allegations that the Nigerian government had acted in complicity in persecution. It is clear that the Board understood that the issue was whether the state was willing or able to protect the applicant from the criminal activity he described.
[15] This application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 6, 2001.