Date: 20010316
Docket: IMM-1715-00
Ottawa, Ontario, March 16, 2001
Before: Pinard J.
Between:
Olusegun Tony AKINSEHINWA
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision by the Refugee Division on February 28, 2000 that the plaintiff is not a Convention refugee is dismissed.
YVON PINARD JUDGE
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20010316
Docket: IMM-1715-00
Neutral reference: 2001 FCT 186
Between:
Olusegun Tony AKINSEHINWA
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] The application for judicial review is from a decision by the Refugee Division ("the RD") on February 28, 2000 that the plaintiff is not a Convention refugee as defined in s. 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The plaintiff alleged before the RD that he was persecuted in Nigeria for his political opinions and membership in a particular social group (Odua People's Congress ("OPC") and National Association of Nigerian Students ("NANS")) on account of his ethnic origin (Yoruba tribe).
[3] The RD dismissed the plaintiff's application due to his lack of credibility resulting in particular from the following discrepancies.
- The RD found that the plaintiff's allegations regarding the incidents following his arrest in June 1998 were inconsistent. It said:
. . . Although the tribunal had difficulty in understanding the reasons which would motivate a person in hiding of [sic] attending demonstrations, while fearing a further arrest, it accords the claimant the benefit of doubt mostly based on a possible naiveté or "douce insouciance". The tribunal, however, finds incredible the fact that there was absolutely no mention of ever being in hiding, nor any mention of the November 1998 rallies, when he wrote or corrected his PIF.
- Regarding the plaintiff's appointment as a public relations officer of the Youth Wing of the OPC in January 1999, when he was supposed to be in hiding, the RD observed "[That] (h)e would have accepted a position of the highest profile and public exposure while in hiding is incomprehensible". The RD also noted:
. . . in his written testimony, there is no mention of the Youth Wing of the OPC, whereas in his testimony and documented evidence adduced (as of February 18, 2000) he is no longer the high profile person to whom he had referred, but a member of the Youth Wing of the OPC.
- The plaintiff testified that he was suspended from the university between 1992 and 1994. This suspension was not mentioned on his Personal Information Form. Despite several requests for clarification, the RD could not understand the reason for this suspension or why the plaintiff included these two years in calculating his years of education.
- The plaintiff testified that he was unable to obtain documentation confirming that he was vice-president of the NANS because the president of that association died in an accident.
[4] Contrary to what was argued by the plaintiff, the RD also concluded that his primary intention was to continue his studies in Canada, not to claim refugee status here. Finally, as regards the plaintiff's participation in the OPC and his minimizing the extent of violence in that organization, the RD found based on documentary evidence and the testimony of the plaintiff himself that the organization was unquestionably violent and dangerous.
[5] The question here is simply one of credibility and assessment of the facts. Despite the efforts of counsel for the plaintiff I was not persuaded on reviewing the evidence that intervention by this Court would be justified. In order to succeed, the plaintiff had to show that the tribunal based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (s. 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). Here, on the contrary, the discrepancies noted by the tribunal were in general fully supported by the evidence in the record. I am further satisfied that the inferences drawn by the RD, which is a specialized tribunal, could reasonably have been drawn (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315, at 316 and 317).
[6] In the circumstances, therefore, I consider that the tribunal's perception that the plaintiff was not credible amounts in fact to a conclusion that there is no credible evidence on which to base his refugee status claim (see Sheikh v. Canada, [1990] 3 F.C. 238, at 244).
[7] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 16, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: IMM-1715-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Olusegun Tony Akinsehinwa v. MCI
- and -
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 7, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Pinard J.
DATED: March 16, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Luciano Mascaro FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Pascale-Catherine Guay FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Arpin, Mascaro et Associés FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content