Date: 19980828
Docket: IMM-2932-97
B E T W E E N:
EMMANUEL EGHOSA ODOBO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
MacKAY J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review seeking judicial review of, and for an order setting aside, the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division ("CRDD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated June 23, 1997, finding the applicant not to be a Convention refugee. Counsel for the parties were heard in Toronto on June 25, 1998, when decision was reserved. An order now issues dismissing the application, for the reasons here set out.
Background
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, claims that he fled that country for fear of persecution by the Nigerian authorities on the basis of his political opinion and membership in a particular social group. The applicant was employed by Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, the late wife of Chief M.K.O. Abiola, the individual reported to have won the presidential election in Nigeria in June 1993. The election was annulled by the military government, and Chief Abiola was arrested and held in detention until early July 1998, when he is reported to have died at a time of discussion about his release, while decision in this matter was under reserve.
[3] The applicant was first employed in 1992 as a member of the clerical staff of Ayinki Pharmaceutical Co. of Nigeria Ltd., a company owned by Mrs. Abiola. In January 1996, he was moved from the company and became a clerical assistant to Dr. Adesina, the personal assistant of, and director to, Mrs. Abiola. Since his arrest in 1994, Mrs. Abiola had worked towards her husband's release and installation as president. The applicant claims that he helped distribute pamphlets and handbills, apparently on behalf of Mrs. Abiola, in connection with the struggle for democracy.
[4] On June 4, 1996, Mrs. Abiola was assassinated by unknown persons. The applicant's boss, Dr. Adesina was also in the vehicle in which Mrs. Abiola was riding, when it was riddled with bullets. On June 6, 1996, the applicant observed his office being raided. Five staff members were arrested and detained, by inference in the investigation of the assassination of Mrs. Abiola. The applicant says he was returning to his office following lunch when he saw, from a distance, two military trucks parked in front of the office and soldiers enter the office compound, and subsequently, he witnessed the staff members being led in handcuffs to the trucks.
[5] The applicant immediately left the vicinity. He telephoned his father to indicate that he would not be returning home for fear of being traced. Instead, he fled to a friend's house, where he went into hiding. On June 7, the applicant claims that his parents' home in Lagos was visited and a demand was made that the applicant turn himself in. The parents and the applicant's siblings subsequently fled their home out of fear of being detained.
[6] The applicant remained in hiding until travel documents could be prepared. He then came to Canada and here claimed refugee status. The applicant's father is said to have mailed documents to support the applicant's claimed employment, but the applicant has not received these. A birth certificate subsequently sent to him by his sister was claimed to have been received by him in Canada in an envelope which was post-marked at a date later than he claimed initially that it had been received.
CRDD Decision
[7] The CRDD accepted that the applicant was a Nigerian citizen. It noted, however, that no documentary evidence was submitted to support his claim that he was an employee of Mrs. Abiola or that he was in Nigeria at the time he alleges. Further, when questioned about his responsibilities in his work for Dr. Adesina, and those of the other employees, he was confused and gave different versions of the number of employees and their roles. His testimony, it is said, did not have the ring of truth.
[8] While there was documentary evidence about detention and investigation of family members of Dr. Abiola and of political opponents of the ruling regime, there was no such evidence that any of the employees of Mrs. Abiola were detained or were sought by the authorities. In weighing the applicant's testimony in light of the documentary evidence, the panel found, on the balance of probabilities that the applicant's testimony was not credible.
[9] In the CRDD decision the central issue is described as "whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution because he was a clerical officer to [Mrs.] Abiola's personal assistant". He also claimed to fear returning to Nigeria because he distributed pro-democracy materials. The panel found that there was no persuasive evidence to indicate that the applicant has come to the attention of the authorities or that he is wanted now for any past activities. His own evidence was that he had not had any difficulties with the authorities prior to the death of Mrs. Abiola in June 1996 or indeed up until his departure from Nigeria.
Analysis
[10] For the applicant it is urged that in finding there was no persuasive evidence that he was associated with Mrs. Abiola or that her employees were detained or sought by authorities, the panel placed undue emphasis on the applicant's imprecise or confusing evidence about the staff and their respective responsibilities in the office of Mrs. Abiola. Further, it is urged that the panel relied upon documentary evidence that dealt with the general situation of detention of family and close associates of the detained leader, Chief Abiola, which did not directly contradict the applicant's sworn testimony that he feared persecution because of his association with Mrs. Abiola and because of his activity in distribution of pamphlets that would be seen to be directed against the incumbent government.
[11] I am persuaded, as the respondent submits, that it was open on the evidence before the panel for it to conclude that the applicant was not a credible witness in regard to his relationship to Mrs. Abiola and her office staff, and that there was no evidence he had ever come to the attention of the authorities as a member of her staff or for his pamphleteering activities. The panel set out its reasons for questioning his credibility.
Conclusion
[12] The panel was the trier of fact observing the applicant in his testimony. Unless there is no evidentiary basis for the panel's conclusion, so that its conclusion on credibility can be said to be perverse, the Court has no ground to intervene.
[13] The application for judicial review is dismissed. Whether this Court would have come to the same decision as the panel did is not an issue. The decision in question, in my opinion, cannot be characterized as perverse or not based on evidence before the panel. That evidence was weighed by the panel, as it was entitled to do.
[14] Counsel for the parties did not propose any question for possible certification for consideration by the Court pursuant to s.83(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, as amended, and no question is certified.
W. Andrew MacKay
____________________________
Judge
OTTAWA, Ontario
August 28, 1998
Email this Content