IMM-2110-96
B E T W E E N:
DANIEL KOJO WILBERFORCE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD, D. J.:
This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated June 3rd, 1996. By that decision, the Board concluded that this applicant is not a Convention refugee.
FACTS
The applicant was in business in Benin City, Nigeria. His paternal grandfather was a member of the Ogoni tribe. The applicant's business partner introduced him to an organization known as the movement for the survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP). The applicant joined this movement in May of 1993. On May 5, 1994, he participated in a demonstration in Giokoo. On January 4, 1995, he attended a festival organized by MOSOP. Along with his business partner he contributed financially to MOSOP on a quarterly basis. They also contributed to the legal defence fund for another member of the Ogoni tribe.
While the applicant was absent on a business trip in February of 1995, the police and the State Security service searched his apartment as well as his business premises. The business was closed and the applicant's business partner was arrested. Fearing the same fate, the applicant went into hiding in Lagos. On May 25, 1995, the claimant was advised by his mother that security agents had visited his apartment and were looking for him. He stated that those agents had beaten his mother when she refused to disclose his whereabouts. The applicant left Nigeria in July of 1995. He fears persecution by the Nigerian authorities if he were to return.
THE BOARD'S DECISION
The applicant's claim for refugee status is based on his perceived political opinion, his nationality and his membership in a particular social group, namely, MOSOP.
The Board, relying on the documentary evidence before it, observed that the people subjected to persecution were MOSOP members and supporters living in the Ogoni region. The Board's further conclusion was that the evidence did not support a finding that marginal MOSOP supporters like this applicant, living in other regions of the country, would be at risk in any way. The Board made the further observation that during his four months of hiding in Lagos, the applicant did not contact MOSOP in any way to warn other supporters. Furthermore, the applicant was never a member of or a contributor to MOSOP. On the basis of these uncontradicted facts, the Board's conclusion was that the applicant's story was a sheer fabrication and could not be considered credible or supportive of his claim in any way.
THE ISSUES
In my view, this application raises three issues:
| 1. Did the Board fail to observe the principles of natural justice? |
| 2. Did the Board err in making adverse credibility findings with respect to the applicant's evidence? |
and
| 3. Did the Board err in refusing to consider evidence or by making erroneous findings with respect to any of the evidence adduced? |
ANALYSIS
1. Natural Justice
Counsel's submission is that the Board discouraged the applicant from leading evidence with respect to the persecution of MOSOP members and supporters in Nigeria when it advised the applicant and counsel that it accepted the fact that there was repression of MOSOP supporters and members in Nigeria. In counsel's submission, this circumstance constituted a breach of natural justice because of the Board's view as expressed in its reasons that the applicant's claim must fail because of the absence of corroboration of the fact that marginal MOSOP supporters like the applicant living outside Ogoni were nonetheless at risk of persecution.
I do not accept this submission. My perusal of the record persuades me that whilst the Board accepted the evidence relating to general conditions facing MOSOP members, this finding did not relieve the applicant from his obligation to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on his own particular situation. This he failed to do. Accordingly the natural justice argument fails in the circumstances of this case.
2. Credibility
The relevant jurisprudence establishes that the findings of a Board such as this should not be lightly set aside1. Unless the Board's decision is patently unreasonable, it should not be set aside2. I am not persuaded that the decision a quo is patently unreasonable. My perusal of this record persuades me that the Board did not rely on irrelevant or extraneous considerations. In my view, the Board's reasons establish that it had a clear "grasp of the issues". Accordingly a reviewing Court should not set aside the Board's decision in such circumstances3.
3. Consideration of the evidence
In my view there is no merit in this submission. I have concluded that since there is no evidence on the record concerning the applicant's personal situation, the Board did not err in finding that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution.
4. Conclusion
Neither counsel suggested certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree with that view. Accordingly no question is certified.
Accordingly, and for all the above reasons, the within application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Darrel V. Heald"
D. J.
Toronto, Ontario
April 16, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-2110-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: DANIEL KOJO WILBERFORCE
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 14, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD, D.J.
DATED: APRIL 16, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Kingsley Jesuorobo
For the Applicant
Ms. Kathryn Hucal
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
2300 Finch Avenue West
Unit 65
North York, Ontario
M9M 2Y3
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-2110-96
Between:
DANIEL KOJO WILBERFORCE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1 Compare, Pour et al. Court File IMM-3650-95, per Gibson, J.
2 See Lim v. Canada (1981), 12 Imm. L.R. (2d) 161 (F.C.A.).
3 See Boulis v. M.E.I., (1974), S.C.R. 875.