Date: 20051220
Docket: IMM-10295-04
Citation: 2005 FC 1656
BETWEEN:
SCOTT OSARU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated November 15, 2004, wherein the Board found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or "a person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Scott Osaru ("the applicant") is a citizen of Nigeria who alleges a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his religion and his membership in a particular social group i.e. the family, as the first born son, by the Ogboni Society and his stepmother.
[3] The Board rejected the applicant's claim, finding that there was a lack of credible and trustworthy evidence presented. Specifically, the Board made the following findings in determining the claim not to be credible:
- The Board did not find the applicant's testimony to be consistent in material aspects and received an impression of the claimant "making up parts" as he proceeded;
- the applicant omitted mentioning violent police beatings within his Personal Information Form ("PIF");
- the applicant's evidence was not consistent with the documentary evidence regarding the Ogboni Society as a peaceful group that does not engage in violence;
- the applicant did not present any evidence that might tend to show that the Ogboni members saw it as an exceptional circumstance and thereby felt compelled to get him to join;
- the Board found the applicant's effort in his testimony to maximize significantly injuries suffered in an alleged situation and then later to trivialize them when asked to explain his actions, not to be credible;
- the Board found there "may be a state of contention existing between the claimant and his stepmother and half brother and half sister the extent of which is far from clear"; and
- the Board had before it no evidence to support the applicant's allegation that he could be stoned by the generality of the Nigerian community for witchcraft.
In addition, the Board found adequate State protection and an Internal Flight Alternative in Lagos.
[4] This Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Board with respect to credibility findings unless the applicant can demonstrate that the Board's decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). The Board is a specialized tribunal, capable of assessing the plausibility and credibility of a testimony, to the extent that the inferences which it draws from it are not unreasonable (Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and its reasons are expressed clearly and comprehensibly (Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1992), 130 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.)).
[5] While the applicant's submission that a mere recitation of some facts from the evidence does not amount in law to adequate reasons for considering the applicant's evidence not credible is true, it is my opinion that this was not the case here.
[6] The Reasons of the Board should be read as a whole and not subject to a microscopic examination (Ndombele v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2001 FCT 1211, Botros v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2002 FCT 1298, Makki v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2004 FCT 619 and Kuanzambi v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2002 FCT 1307). Clumsiness of language or expression is often understandable and no consequence must be given to it, provided that on reading the decision as a whole, it can be seen that the Board did not go astray in terms of its role or the manner in which it should be carried out (see Lesanu v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 962 (F.C.A.) (QL)).
[7] If the Reasons of the Board are read in their entirety, the factors that led the Board to impugn the applicant's credibility are clearly set out. In the initial paragraph of the Board's analysis, the Board clearly stated:
The claimant's testimony was straightforward in parts but contrived and improbable in other aspects. The panel did not find the claimant's testimony to be consistent in material aspects and received an impression of the claimant making up parts as he proceeded. The panel in particular noted that the claimant's narrative stated that the police were threatening and harassing him. The claimant testified however that he had been violently beaten up by the police on at least two occasions and had failed to mention this in his PIF and offered no explanation for this omission. The panel did not find the claimant's testimony to be credible.
[8] The following ten pages were nothing if not clear as to the specific reasons that the Board found the applicant to be incredible with regard to his testimony, ranging from inconsistencies with the documentary evidence, to improbabilities and inconsistencies in his testimony.
[9] In my opinion, the Board has committed no reviewable error with regard to its credibility finding, or its reasons therefor. This conclusion alone is sufficient to dispose of this application for judicial review. Because the Board did not believe the applicant's story, the applicant cannot satisfy the definition of a Convention refugee or "a person in need of protection". It will therefore not be necessary to deal with the additional findings with respect to State protection and Internal Flight Alternative.
[10] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 20, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-10295-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: SCOTT OSARU v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: November 10, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: December 20, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Kingsley I. Jesuorobo FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Allison Phillips FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kingsley I. Jesuorobo FOR THE APPLICANT
North York, Ontario
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada