Date: 20041214
Docket: IMM-8260-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1733
OTTAWA, Ontario, the 14th day of December, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN
BETWEEN:
ERNEST MADUMERE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") dated September 17, 2003 in which the applicant was found not to be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.
FACTS
[2] The applicant, Ernest Madumere, is a 30-year old Nigerian national who alleges a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political opinion and his membership in the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra ("MASSOB").
[3] The applicant alleges that he became a member of MASSOB in April 2001, and was issued a membership card shortly thereafter. He states that he was often responsible for driving members to meetings and rallies, which he also attended. On February 3, 2003, the applicant was driving a busload of MASSOB members to a meeting when he was stopped by the police. He alleges that the officers forced the members to lie on their stomachs and kicked and hit them with rifle butts. In oral evidence, the applicant testified that he was knocked on the back of the neck with a rifle butt, lost consciousness and bled from the nose and mouth. The entire group was taken to the police station, where they were confined to a single cell for at least a month. The applicant was released when his father bribed an officer to set him free.
[4] Following his release, the applicant went into hiding for a week while he waited to leave the country. The applicant departed for Canada on March 17, 2003 and although he brought some personal identification with him, he left without his MASSOB membership card.
[5] At the hearing, the applicant produced his MASSOB membership card for the Board. He claimed that a member of his church in Canada was returning to Nigeria and had offered to collect or deliver messages there. The applicant requested that the church-member go to his father's home and retrieve his membership card, which he did.
THE DECISION
[6] The Board considered documentary evidence regarding the treatment of MASSOB members in Nigeria and found that a member would have a strong objective basis for fearing persecution. However, the Board rejected the applicant's claim because it was not satisfied that he was a MASSOB member. It found that he had fabricated his involvement in MASSOB activities, the detention and beating, as well as his membership card, in order to bolster his refugee claim.
[7] The Board relied on the way in which the membership card was retrieved to cast doubt on its authenticity. The Board member doubted that a relative stranger would be willing to undertake a 24-hour bus trip to spend a few minutes picking up a card and yet bring no written message from the father. The Board also questioned why the applicant did not know the full name of the messenger, nor produce him as a witness at the hearing.
[8] In addition, the Board found the applicant's knowledge of MASSOB to be very general and his description of the arrest and detention to be quite vague. The Board noted from the documentary evidence that incidents such as the one described by the applicant are usually reported in the press, however, there was no report in this case. Moreover, based on the evidence, the Board was not satisfied that the police had an interest in the applicant.
[9] The Board concluded that, when taken together, the inconsistencies and implausibilities in the applicant's evidence rendered it untrustworthy.
ISSUE
[10] Did the Board err in assessing the applicant's credibility?
ANALYSIS
[11] The standard of review for findings of credibility is patent unreasonableness. See Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.).
[12] In concluding that the MASSOB card presented by the applicant was not authentic, the Board relied in part on the fact that the church-member would have undertaken a 24-hour round trip by bus to collect the card from the applicant's father. The Board found it implausible that he would undertake such a long journey simply to retrieve a card. In stating that the trip would take 24-hours, the Board clearly committed an error. The uncontradicted evidence of the applicant at the hearing was that it would have taken the church-member three hours, each-way, to travel to the applicant's home, not twelve.
[13] While the Board erred with respect to this finding, I am of the view that this error is inconsequential to the ultimate decision. Taken in its entirety, the evidence supports the Board's finding that the applicant is not credible.
[14] For example, the length of the trip was not the only factor considered by the Board in discounting the authenticity of the card. It also relied on the fact that the applicant did not know the full name of the messenger and it considered the unlikelihood of someone offering to retrieve the card just before the applicant's refugee hearing. In my view, it was reasonably open to the Board to draw a negative inference from these factors. Moreover, the applicant did not dispute this finding of fact in his affidavit before the Court. If someone from the applicant's church in Toronto traveled to Nigeria, undertook a major bus trip to visit the applicant's home and obtain the applicant's membership card, and then bring it to the applicant in Toronto, I would expect the applicant to have gushed with gratitude toward the alleged good Samaritan. This would have naturally prompted the applicant to have known the kind man's name, and to have given the man some gifts. Instead, the applicant, when questioned about the identity of the man, could not clearly identify him.
[15] Aside from the authenticity of the card, there were ample reasons to support the Board's negative credibility finding. The Board identified several inconsistencies between the information provided by the applicant in his personal information form ("PIF") and his oral testimony. For example, his PIF made no mention of the injuries he sustained personally during the arrest and he only provided such details at the hearing when prompted by the Board member. Moreover, the PIF does not refer to the fact that the applicant was placed in a small cell with approximately 25 other detainees, a situation that would have been very difficult considering he was incarcerated for a month. It is well-established that discrepancies between a claimant's PIF narrative and oral testimony can be used as a basis for negative credibility findings. See Grinevich v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 444 (T.D.).
[16] Further, some of the applicant's testimony was contradictory. At first the applicant claimed that he did not know whether the police had contacted his father after he left Nigeria, whereas later in his testimony he claimed that the police went to his father's house on several occasions looking for him. In view of this contradictory evidence, it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that the applicant was probably not being sought out by the Nigerian police.
[17] The Board is in the best position to assess the credibility of the applicant. Moreover, the onus is on the applicant to prove his claim in a clear and forthright manner, which he did not.
CONCLUSION
[18] For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the Board's decision with respect to credibility was not patently unreasonable. Accordingly, this application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[19] Neither party proposed a question for certification. The Court agrees that this case does not present any question which should be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
This application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Michael A. Kelen" _______________________________
JUDGE
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-8260-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: MADUMERE ERNEST v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 7, 2004
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND
ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen
DATED: DECEMBER 14, 2004
APPEARANCES BY: Christian C. Chijindu
4101 Steeles Ave. West
Suite 201, Toronto
ON M3N 1V7
For the Applicant
Marina Stefanovich
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 130 King Street West
Suite 3400, Box 36
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Christian C. Chijindu
416-650-9009
For the Applicant
Marina Stefanovich
(416) 973-5111
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20041214
Docket: IMM-8260-03
BETWEEN:
ERNEST MADUMERE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
Email this Content