Docket: IMM-3932-14
Citation:
2015 FC 1418
Ottawa, Ontario, December 23, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Annis
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
AUGUSTINE EBANE IYAMU
(a.k.a. AUGUSTINA EBANEHITA IYAMU)
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
This is an application
for judicial review pursuant to section 72(1) of
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA or the
Act] challenging a Refugee Protection Division [the Board or RPD] decision
finding that Augustine Ebane Iyamu’s [the Applicant] claim does not have a
credible basis and is manifestly unfounded and pursuant to sections 107(2) and
(3) of the Act, and that she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in
need of protection in the meaning of sections 96 and 97(1) of the Act. The Applicant
is seeking to have the decision set aside and referred back to a different
panel for redetermination. For the reasons that follow, the application is
dismissed.
[2]
The principal submission of the Applicant, who
is a citizen of Nigeria, is that the Board erred in its credibility finding in concluding
that the Applicant radically departed from her original narrative. The Board
found that the Applicant changed her narrative after a break in the hearing from
one where her husband’s family persecuted her on allegations of witchcraft despite
her husband’s efforts to protect her, including urging her to leave the country
to avoid harm, to a version whereby the husband would be one of the persecutors,
should she return to Nigeria.
[3]
It is common ground that the applicable standard
of review of the Board’s credibility finding is one of reasonableness to which
deference is owed: (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9; Tariq v
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 692,
para 10)
[4]
In reply to the Applicant’s submissions, in
examining the testimony I find that the disputed evidence was led in answers to
questions by her counsel and did not reflect a hypothetical scenario, but
rather an expression of the fear that she would face on return to Nigeria from
her husband. Moreover, in answers to her counsel she clearly stated that her
husband would turn against her by taking her before the Oracle, being conduct
relating to accusations of witchcraft made against her.
[5]
I also do not find any meaningful basis for the
Applicant’s claim that the affidavits filed in support of her application
identified her husband as one of her future persecutors. For example, in the
affidavit of Ms. Nkechi Alabi the deponent states that her husband supported the
Applicant to the point of asking her to leave him in reply to which suggestion
she stated that “life would not be it without her
beloved McDonald [the husband] and their love will trump their travails.”
Similarly in the affidavit of the Olorogun Harrison Ome, the deponent makes
reference to “her kind husband.”
[6]
There are other areas where serious
discrepancies were pointed out in her testimony. Most importantly, the
existence of “Abigail”, the daughter born out of wedlock who was said to be the
cause of much of the persecution, is not substantiated inasmuch as the
Applicant failed to mention her in multiple visa applications where she was
required to describe all family members. She also omitted important details
from her narrative regarding her reavailment to Nigeria and her immigration
history. As well, the Applicant failed to claim protection at the first
reasonable opportunity, including various travels over the years to the United
Kingdom and the United States, as late as 2013.
[7]
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Board’s
decision is reasonable in concluding that the Applicant’s claim had no credible
basis and was manifestly unfounded, and in rejecting the Refugee protection
claim pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Act. No question is certified for
appeal.
Email this Content