Date: 20050201
Docket: IMM-1851-04
Citation: 2005 FC 131
BETWEEN:
EZEKIEL FIYEBOBRA JOLOWO
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 May 9, 2003, wherein the Board found the applicant not to be 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] Ezekiel Fiyebobra Jolowo (the applicant) is a citizen of Nigeria. He alleges a well-founded fear of persecution in his country by reason of his religion. He also claims on the consolidated grounds.
[3] The Board based its decision on a negative credibility finding. I do not think that it was unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the applicant lacked credibility for the reasons that follow.
[4] The applicant's father's death is the reason for the alleged fear of persecution and the risk to his life, however the death certificate provided to the Board contained a first name different than the applicant's father's. The certificate also stated that the deceased was 62 years of age, however in his Personal Information Form, the applicant wrote that his father was born in 1945. When confronted with the fact that someone born in 1945 could not be 62 years of age in 2002, the applicant changed the date of birth to 1941 and then to 1939. These inconsistencies undermine the applicant's credibility, especially considering the father's death is central to his claim. In addition, documents exist (exhibit A-20) suggesting that Mr. Richard Jolowo, the applicant's father, is alive and living in Nigeria.
[5] Furthermore, the Board did not give probative weight to the newspaper article submitted by the applicant in support of his case. The article was full of serious grammatical mistakes, only mentioned the applicant by his first name, and never mentioned the applicant's father's name. The Board is entitled to weigh the evidence accordingly and it is my view that its reasons justify giving the article little probative weight.
[6] The applicant alleges an apprehension of bias on the part of the panel, however does not substantiate its arguments with any proof. Such an allegation cannot be made lightly and must be supported by material evidence that demonstrates conduct that derogates from the standard (see Barry v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 266 (T.D.) (QL) and [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369">Committee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. L'Office national de l'énergie et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369). There is no evidence in the file to support this allegation.
[7] I am of the opinion that the applicant has not discharged his burden of showing that the Board, which is a specialized tribunal, based its decision 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). Nor has he submitted any evidence to justify a conclusion of a reasonable apprehension of bias.
[8] For all the above reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 1, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1851-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: EZEKIEL FIYEBOBRA JOLOWO v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: December 16, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: February 1, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Me Idorenyin E. Amana FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Ian Demers FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Idorenyin E. Amana FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content