Date: 20030529
Docket: IMM-2639-02
Neutral Citation: 2003 FCT 677
Between:
SAMUEL ENOTIEMWONMWAN OGBEIDE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated May 13, 2002, determining him not to be a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 (the "Act").
The applicant is a citizen of Nigeria, who claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of Ogboni cult members, by reason of his membership in a particular social group, namely eldest sons of fathers who were Ogboni cult members, and who refuse to join the cult.
The Board dismissed the applicant's claim because it found him not to be a credible or trustworthy witness.
The applicant takes issue with the Board's credibility finding, which he says was improperly reached. In order to properly examine the issue of credibility, the Court must be able to assess whether the Board drew inferences from the evidence which were reasonable (Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and if its grounds are explained clearly and comprehensibly (Hilo v. M.E.I. (1991), 15 Imm.L.R. (2d) 199 (F.C.A.)).
The applicant submits that in making its credibility finding, the Board failed to consider the evidence contained in his Personal Information Form ("PIF"). A tribunal must be presumed to have considered all of the evidence that was presented to it, and it is not obliged to mention in its reasons all the evidence it has taken into account before rendering its decision (Hassan v. M.E.I. (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.)). In fact, it is clear from the Board's reasons that it carefully considered the applicant's testimony in reaching its decision. The fact that it did not specifically mention the contents of the PIF does not mean that it did not consider them. The Board was entitled to prefer the documentary evidence over the applicant's testimony, provided it stated clearly and unequivocally why it preferred such evidence (Asanjan v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (November 2, 1998), IMM-3470-97). I am satisfied that the Board did so in its reasons.
The applicant also argues that the Board failed to evaluate his general demeanour as he was testifying. An applicant's demeanour is a proper subject for a Board to take into account, and as such constitutes evidence which influences the decision, albeit evidence which is generally only within the purview of the Board to evaluate (Samani v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (August 18, 1998), IMM-4271-97). The fact that the Board did not mention the applicant's demeanour in this case is irrelevant, as it was not a determinative factor (Cepeda-Gutierrez et al. v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1998), 157 F.T.R. 35).
Finally, the applicant argues that the Board had no reason to doubt that his father was a senior member of the Ogboni cult in Benin City. He also submits that documentary evidence has shown that parental initiation in the cult has always been possible, and that most senior police officers and politicians are members of the Ogboni Society. However, at no time did the Board take issue with these propositions, but rather with the particular events and acts of violence which the applicant alleges took place after his father's death. It properly considered the evidence before it and committed no reviewable error in finding that there was insufficient reliable evidence to support the applicant's claim. Similarly, it thoroughly canvassed the documentary evidence before concluding that the applicant could have sought state protection within Nigeria.
For all the above reasons, which are filed pursuant to section 51 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, the application for judicial review was dismissed from the bench.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 29, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2639-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: SAMUEL ENOTIEMWONMWAN OGBEIDE v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 22, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: May 29, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Dariusz Wroblewski FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Greg George FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Laurence Cohen FOR THE APPLICANT
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content