Date: 19990407
Docket: IMM-3323-98
Between: JOLLY IKEKHIDE
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the Immigration and Refugee Board decision dated May 7, 1998, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.
Facts
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, claimed refugee status, alleging a well-founded fear of persecution in his country for reasons of nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group.
Decision of the Board
[3] The Board held that the applicant lacked credibility based on the numerous discrepancies it found between his testimony and the documentary evidence in the record concerning the situation in Warri, Nigeria.
[4] The Board also found a discrepancy between the applicant"s Port-of-Entry (POE) document and his Personal Information Form.
Argument of the applicant
[5] Counsel for the applicant argued that despite the fact that the applicant was found to be not credible, the Board member should have assessed the risk to the applicant"s life if he had to return to Nigeria.
[6] She submitted that the documentary evidence was unanimous in describing Nigeria as one of the worst countries insofar as human rights are concerned; therefore, the Board member had to ensure the claimant was not in danger before rejecting his claim.
[7] She also referred to Exhibit A-17, which quotes a fairly reliable source as saying that rejected claimants might have serious problems if they are sent back to Nigeria.
Argument of the respondent
[8] Counsel for the respondent stressed the fact that the Board had found the applicant to be not very credible.
[9] She also suggested that it was for the Board to assess the plausibility of the applicant"s account, and that it was fully within its power to prefer the objective documentary evidence to the claimant"s subjective testimony.
[10] She also suggested that although the documentary evidence might show that the situation in Nigeria is very difficult, the claimant must establish his own situation as a claimant and establish that his own situation and the situation in Nigeria are connected in such a way that he would be in real danger if he were returned to Nigeria, which has not been shown in this case.
Analysis
[11] In the recent case Ukponmwan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1158, Mr. Justice Evans expressed the following view:
| The Board"s dismissal of the applicant"s refugee claim on grounds of credibility makes it very difficult for him to maintain that he is likely to be subject to torture as an Ogoni or as a MOSOP activist. Moreover, while there are no doubt uncertainties about the future, the human rights situation in Nigeria seems to be improving under General Abubakar, thus reducing the likelihood that the applicant would be detained indefinitely or tortured, simply because he could be identified by immigration authorities in Nigeria as a failed refugee claimant in Canada. |
[12] Absent cogent evidence that the applicant might be in danger if he returns to Nigeria, the Board was justified in finding as it did.
[13] An examination of the record shows that the Board"s adverse credibility findings are properly based on discrepancies and inconsistencies between the documentary evidence and the applicant"s testimony.
[14] The Board clearly set out the reasons that led it to dismiss the applicant"s oral testimony and prefer the documentary evidence. The documentary evidence is objective in nature.
[15] The Board gave the applicant the opportunity to explain the discrepancies and inconsistencies between his oral testimony and the documentary evidence. The applicant failed to explain them to the Board"s satisfaction.
[16] In Odobo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1267, Mr. Justice MacKay held:
| The panel was the trier of fact observing the applicant in his testimony. Unless there is no evidentiary basis for the panel"s conclusion, so that its conclusion on credibility can be said to be perverse, the Court has no ground to intervene. |
Conclusion
[17] In my opinion, the applicant has failed to discharge his heavy burden of showing that the Board"s decision is perverse or capricious; therefore, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[18] As neither counsel suggested that there was a serious question, no question will be certified.
Pierre Blais
Judge
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
April 7, 1999
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT"TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 19990407
Docket: IMM-3323-98
Between:
JOLLY IKEKHIDE
Applicant
AND
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-3323-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOLLY IKEKHIDE
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 6, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER BY BLAIS J.
DATED: April 7, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Michelle Langelier for the applicant
Lisa Maziade for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michelle Langelier for the applicant
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Federal Department of Justice