Date: 20110818
Docket: IMM-97-11
Citation: 2011 FC 1004
Montréal, Québec, August 18, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
|
|
KOME WILLIAMS
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 72 of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (the Act) of a negative decision
of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) made on December 13, 2010.
[2]
For
the reasons set out below, this application shall be dismissed.
[3]
The
applicant is a 23-year-old citizen of Nigeria. In December 2004, she
violated a tradition in her home village and was sentenced by the village
elders to death. With the help of her father, she escaped to Lagos where she
met Felix Ozomo (the Agent) who helped her flee the country in January 2005 in
exchange for agreeing to the payment of 50,000 Euros, once in Italy. The
applicant was later forced into prostitution in order to repay this debt. In
April 2005, she was arrested by the police and upon providing information
against the Agent, she was subsequently provided status in the country along
with shelter services. In February 2007, the Agent tracked her down, seeking
payment of the debt and uttering threats.
[4]
In
September of that year, she contacted Paul, a client/boyfriend, and sought his
assistance in leaving the country, which she did in May 2008 with the help of a
false Italian passport. She arrived in Montreal by airplane
on May 24 and immediately requested asylum. She was then seven months pregnant
and was detained for identity purposes until July 11, 2008.
[5]
The
determinative issue in this case is the existence of an internal flight alternative
(IFA) in Abuja,
Nigeria. Despite several
concerns regarding the applicant's credibility, the Board accepted that she had
satisfactorily established her identity, her lack of status in Italy, her fears and the
reasons underlying these fears.
[6]
The Board
considered and analyzed several arguments raised by the applicant as to why she
could not live safely in the proposed IFA namely her fear of the Agent, the
village elders who sought to murder her in 2004. It also assessed the
applicant's personal particular circumstances and came to the conclusion that Abuja was a reasonable and
realistic IFA.
[7]
The
Court agrees with the parties that the appropriate standard of review in the
case at bar is reasonableness Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008]
1 SCR 190 at para 47.
[8]
The
Court is of the opinion that the Board applied reasonably the two-pronged test
as set out in Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment
and Immigration), [1994]
1 FC 589, paras 14-15 to the case at bar. It undertook all of the applicant's
objections for fearing living in Abuja and gave cogent reasons for not agreeing. It
referred to country conditions to find that adequate and effective state
protection would be reasonably forthcoming to the applicant if need be.
[9]
The
Board considered and applied the Chairperson's Guideline for Women Refugee
Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. It explained in details why Abuja was a reasonable IFA
for the applicant (see paras 32 to 43 of the decision).
[10]
Unlike
the decision rendered in Sara Okafor v The Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration (2011 FC 1002), in this case, the Board analyzed the
undue hardship that the applicant would face staying in Abuja. It took into
consideration her precarious personal situation but was satisfied, in referring
to documentary evidence in Nigeria, that the proposed IFA would not jeopardize her life and
safety.
[11]
The
Court's intervention is not warranted.
[12]
The
parties did not propose questions for certification and none arise.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS
that
the application for judicial review be dismissed. No
question is certified.
“Michel
Beaudry”
Email this Content