Docket: IMM-3797-11
Citation: 2011 FC 1463
Toronto, Ontario, December 12, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
|
|
MARCUS ARKIE ZOEFLEY
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
The
Applicant Marcus Arkie Zoefley is an adult male citizen of Liberia. He alleges
that he is the adopted son of Moses Craig, the Director of Staff of the
National Defence of Liberia during the Samuel Doe regime in that country.
[2]
Liberia was engaged
in civil war in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. The Applicant alleges that in the
early 1990’s, forces opposed to the Doe regime for a time captured him and
tortured him. He alleges that he went into hiding in Liberia for sixteen
years. Nonetheless it appears that during that time, he worked as an
agriculturalist for World Vision and the European Union where he came into
contact with local farmers. Also he became a pastor. Occasionally, he preached to
congregations in Liberia’s capital city, Monrovia.
[3]
In
January 2007, the Applicant travelled to the United States to attend a
religious conference. At that time, he found his adoptive mother. She attempted
to sponsor him to reside in the United States. That was unsuccessful.
[4]
The
Applicant entered Canada in March 2009 and claimed refugee protection.
In a written decision dated May 16, 2011, the Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada, Refugee Protection Division, determined that the Applicant was not a
Convention refugee. That decision is the subject of this judicial review.
[5]
Both
parties agree that the decision is to be reviewed on a standard of
reasonableness. The sole issue is whether the decision was reasonable within
the parameters established by the Supreme Court in Dunsmuir v New
Brunswick,
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 190.
[6]
The
decision under review is fact based. The Board accepted parts of the
Applicant’s evidence, such as that in 1990 he was detained and tortured by
rebel forces. It rejected other parts of his evidence, such as correspondence
from his wife and from a medical centre. The Board’s decision essentially turned
on the fact that the Applicant lived and worked in Liberia for sixteen
years after being released by the rebels. During that time he was reasonably
exposed to the public, including public appearances in Monrovia as a pastor.
Thus, if harm were to come to the Applicant there were many opportunities for
that to happen, but it did not. Applicant’s Counsel argues that much of the
sixteen years was spent moving from place to place and that the Board should
have been more aggressive in putting direct questions to the Applicant as to
matters of credibility. However, I find that the Applicant was given a fair
hearing and that the Board’s decision was reasonable. There is no basis for
setting that decision aside.
[7]
Accordingly,
the application is dismissed. There is no basis for a certified question. There
is no special reason to order costs.
JUDGMENT
FOR THE
REASONS PROVIDED:
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT
is that:
1.
The
application is dismissed;
2.
No
question is certified; and
3.
No
Order as to costs.
“Roger
T. Hughes”
Email this Content