Date: 20010928
Docket: IMM-5968-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1073
BETWEEN:
ADENIYI BAMIDELE ESTHER
Applicant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
McKEOWN J.
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated October 6, 2000, wherein the Board determined that the Applicant was not a Convention Refugee.
[2] The issue is whether the Board erred in finding that the Applicant lacked credibility.
[3] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria who asserts a well-founded fear of persecution based on her membership in a particular social group, that is, widowed women subject to forced marriage.
[4] The Board made the following general statements with respect to the Applicant's credibility:
The existence of contradictions, omissions or discrepancies in the evidence of a claimant is a well-accepted basis for a finding of lack of credibility. This also applies to the claimant's previous statements, whether made to Canadian immigration officials at the time of arrival in Canada or in the claimant's Personal Information Form (PIF).
[5] The Board concluded at page 7 on the subject of credibility:
Given the above-noted inconsistencies and implausibilities, the panel finds that they impact on the claimant's credibility generally. The Panel is not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, as to the credibility of the account of events as alleged by the claimant.
Given that the above findings are central to the claim, the panel is not persuaded, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a reasonable chance or a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted based on a Convention refugee ground in the event of her return to Nigeria.
[6] The Board has complete jurisdiction and is in the best position to determine credibility. The Board is also in the best position to draw inferences from the evidence before it. This is clearly within the expertise of the Board. In effect, the Applicant here is challenging the weight of the evidence.
[7] The Federal Court of Appeal has held that the Refugee Division is entitled to make reasonable findings based on contradiction, inconsistencies, implausibilities and rationality and common sense. The Tribunal is entitled to reject evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole. As long as the inferences and conclusions of the Board are reasonably open to it on the record, there is no basis for intervention by me whether or not I agree with the inferences drawn by the Board.
[8] The Applicant has not demonstrated that the findings of the Board were perverse or capricious or not open to it on the record. In my view, the Board's findings on the subject of the Applicant being forced to marry her late husband's brother, the subject of a pastor and her father, and the subject of the age of the Applicant and the pregnancy, were all open to it. The Applicant's complaints are really that the Board did not give the proper weight to certain parts of the evidence as opposed to other parts. This is not a ground upon which the Court ought to reverse the decision of the Board.
[9] There is no breach of natural justice. The Board did not ignore relevant documentary evidence that was supportive of the Applicant's claim. The Board considered the evidence and used it in a manner different from the manner suggested by the Applicant.
[10] There is no evidence before me to show that interpretation problems were the cause of the Board's finding of lack of credibility on behalf of the Applicant.
[11] The Board did not ignore the evidence with respect to traditional or customary ways in Nigeria. This is not a case where the Board looked at matters from a Canadian point of view as opposed to considering the customs and traditions of Nigeria and the Yoruba customs and traditions.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"W.P. McKeown"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 28, 2001