[1] Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko was born in South Africa but lived most of his life in Ghana, of which he is a citizen. He came to Canada in 2001, claiming that he was being persecuted by the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP). He was organizing secretary for the rival National Democratic Congress (NDC) in his village of Otaresco. The NDC had been in power but lost the election in 2000. After the election, some NPP members accused NDC supporters of wrongdoing and attacked them. Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko says that the local vice-president of the NDC party was beaten by NPP members and that he feared they would also come after him. He fled to another village in the north, stayed there for several months and then made his way to Canada. He claimed, but was denied, refugee status before the Immigration and Refugee Board.
[2] Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko argues that the Board made a serious error when it concluded that he could, and indeed did, find safe refuge within Ghana. In this application for judicial review, he asks for a new hearing before a different panel of the Board.
[3] I can find no error in the Board's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application.
Issues:
[4] Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko raises two issues:
1. Did the Board err when it concluded that Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko had an Internal Flight Alternative within Ghana?
2. Did the Board wrongly conclude that state protection was available to Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko?
1. Did the Board err when it concluded that Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko had an Internal Flight Alternative within Ghana?
[5] Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko found a safe place to stay in Wa, the village in northern Ghana to which he fled in 2001. He argues, however, that the Board was wrong to conclude that his staying in Wa was a realistic and reasonable alternative to fleeing to Canada. He claims that he was in hiding in Wa. Therefore, the Board should not have expected him to stay there: Ahmed v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 718 (QL) (F.C.A.).
[6] Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko told the Board that when he was in Wa he spent most of his time indoors. He did not actually say he was in "hiding". Nor did he say he was threatened or pursued in Wa by any of the persons he feared. I recognize that English was Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko's second language and that I should be careful not to quibble over a word. But I do not see anything in his testimony indicating that he was in fear of any imminent harm when he was in Wa or that he felt he had to stay indoors for his safety. Based on his testimony, I cannot fault the Board for concluding that he had a reasonable alternative to seeking refuge in Canada by staying in Wa.
[7] Further, the Board noted that Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko had another alternative: he could have gone to Accra, a city of two million people, if he felt he was in danger in Otaresco or Wa. The Board asked him about that alternative and I see nothing in his testimony, or the other evidence before the Board, indicating that he could not live there in safety. His brother lived there. It was a reasonable option for him: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (QL) (F.C.A.).
2. Did the Board wrongly conclude that state protection was available to Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko?
[8] The Board found that state protection was available to Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko. Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko did not actually bring his concerns to the attention of the police. He thought that making a police report would probably be ineffective because suspects are often released on bail and then exact reprisals against their accusers. He did not fear the police, but thought it unlikely they could protect him.
[9] This evidence, however, was not sufficient to displace the presumption that states are willing and able to protect their citizens: Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 (QL). A refugee claimant must show clear and convincing evidence that state protection is unavailable. Mr. Ayisi-Nyarko's testimony fell well short of that standard.
[10] I cannot conclude that the Board erred. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3671-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ISAAC AYISI-NYARKO v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: November 25, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: December 10, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Nicole Hainer FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Banafsheh Sokhansanj FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Elgin, Cannon and Associates FOR THE APPLICANT
970-777 Hornby Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 1C2
Vancouver, BC
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content