Ndidi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1668

Date: 20051208

Docket: IMM-597-05

Citation: 2005 FC 1668

Ottawa, Ontario, this 8^th day of December, 2005

Present:                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE von FINCKENSTEIN

BETWEEN:

                                                    SOLOMON UGBEKIL NDIDI

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

( Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for precision and clarification)

[1]                The Applicant, Solomon Ugbekil Ndidi, is a 29 year old Nigerian who alleges a well-founded fear of persecution because of his membership in a particular social group, the Otta Igabanke association. He fears persecution by the Itsekeri tribe and also fears the Nigerian police and military.

[2]                His claim was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the ABoard@) on the basis of a lack of credibility. The Board pointed to several inconsistencies between Schedule 1 of the Port of Entry (APOE@) notes, the Personal Information Form (APIF@), and the testimony of the applicant.

[3]                The applicant is seeking to set the Board=s decision aside on the basis of two points:

a)         omissions in the POE notes cannot be held against the Applicant as they were made by the immigration officer and not by him; and

b)         several findings of the Board are allegedly untenable upon a closer examination of the record.

[4]                Point a) is evidently a legal point and should be determined on a standard of correctness while point b) involves findings of credibility which attract the standard of patent unreasonableness. (see Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315.

[5]                A close examination of the Board=s decision and record reveals that any omissions held against the Applicant are omissions from the PIF or Schedule 1 of the POE notes. It is noteworthy that Schedule 1 was completed and signed by the Applicant. Thus, there is no room for Applicant=s argument that it is improper to hold omissions by the immigration officer against him given that any omissions in Schedule 1 are the Applicant=s own omissions. I refrain from expressing a view of whether the Applicant=s contention, if borne out by the record, would necessarily lead to a reversal of the decision.

[6]                As to the findings of credibility, it is noted that the Applicant=s interview was somewhat confusing, and the decision of the Board is not a model of clarity either. However, the key findings for the lack of credibility are undisputed, namely:

a)                   the Applicant purported not to remember the name on the false passport that he used to fly to Canada;

b)                   the Applicant failed to mention the Itsekiri tribe in either Schedule 1 of the POE notes or the PIF, notwithstanding that they are the alleged group that he fears the most and which drove him to exile;

c)                   the contradictions between the Applicant=s work history as stated in the PIF, schedule 1 of the POE notes, and his testimony; and

d)                   the Applicant=s inability to tell his story in a coherent manner without contradictions.

[7]                While some of the findings of the Board=s decision as challenged by the Applicant could be subject to different interpretations, these key findings are undisputed.

[8]                Thus, I cannot find that when one takes the decision as a whole, the findings of lack of credibility are patently unreasonable. Accordingly, this application will not succeed.

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that this application be dismissed.

" Konrad W. von Finckenstein "

                                                                                                Judge

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           IMM-597-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                         SOLOMON UGBEKIL NDIDI

                                                                                                                         Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND                                                                             IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                        Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATES OF HEARING:                     DECEMBER 7, 2005

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                             VON FINCKENSTEIN J.

DATED:                                              December 8, 2005

APPEARANCES BY:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: