Docket: IMM-1191-15
Citation:
2016 FC 214
Ottawa, Ontario, February 17, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ARALOLA RUTH
ARUNA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Introduction
[1]
This is the judicial review of a Refugee Appeal
Division [RAD] decision upholding a finding by the Refugee Protection Division
[RPD] that the Applicant is not a refugee or person in need of protection.
II.
Background
[2]
The Applicant is a Christian. She alleged before
the RPD that she feared returning to Nigeria because she fears her Muslim husband’s
family, who blame her for his kidnapping. She also feared that his family
wished to have her and her daughters circumcised.
[3]
The Applicant alleged multiple instances of
abuse by her husband’s whole family, and in particular, her husband’s uncle.
[4]
The RPD decided against the Applicant based on a
lack of credibility. The RPD also canvassed whether an IFA existed but made no
formal determination on that issue.
[5]
The RAD found that an IFA was available and held
that, while not strictly necessary to decide because of the IFA determination,
the credibility finding of the RPD was also justified.
[6]
The Applicant focused this judicial review on
the credibility issue. In particular, she emphasized that, having accepted Dr.
Pilowsky’s diagnosis of anxiety, it was unreasonable of the RPD to find that
she was not credible.
[7]
The real issues in this appeal are the
reasonableness of the RAD’s IFA and credibility findings.
III.
Analysis
[8]
The applicable standard of review is
reasonableness.
[9]
On the matter of the IFA finding, it is the
Applicant’s burden to show that no IFA exists. It is established law that if an
IFA exists, then a person is not entitled to claim refugee protection status.
[10]
The Applicant was fully able to canvass that
issue at the RPD. She cannot now argue that she was deprived of procedural
fairness because she did not do so and the RPD made no specific finding on the
IFA.
[11]
Given how thoroughly the RPD examined the IFA issue,
the only reasonable conclusion is that it found either that an IFA existed or
the Applicant had failed to show that none existed. It would have been
preferable had it stated so but its failure is not fatal.
[12]
The RAD simply confirmed the reasonableness of a
conclusion that an IFA existed. The Applicant had a full opportunity to address
the matter.
[13]
More importantly, the RPD’s credibility finding,
confirmed by the RAD, is determinative of this refugee protection application
and appeal. There are no grounds to review the conclusions.
[14]
The fact that the psychologist’s report of
anxiety was accepted does not mean that the alleged foundation of that anxiety is
accepted. A person may well present symptoms of anxiety and stress and claim
the cause to be the truth of their narrative, but it is for the decision maker
to decide whether the underlying story is true.
[15]
There was nothing unreasonable in the RAD
accepting that the Applicant had symptoms of anxiety and stress but also
concluding that the narrative was not credible.
IV.
Conclusion
[16]
Therefore, this judicial review will be denied.
There is no question for certification.
Email this Content