Okoye v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 716

Email this Content

Citations
2001 FCT 716

Case tabs

Text of decision

Date: 20010627

Docket: IMM-4974-00

Neutral citation:2001 FCT 716

BETWEEN:

EMMANUEL CHUKWUDI SUNDAY OKOYE

Applicant

-and-

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

MCKEOWN J.

[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the June 19^th, 2000 decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") in which the Board held that the applicant was not a Convention refugee.

[2] There are two issues.

1. Did the Board err in finding that the applicant's evidence was implausible on certain points by misunderstanding the evidence?

2. Did the Board err in finding that the applicant had failed to provide clear and convincing proof of the state's inability to protect him?

[3] The Board's findings on implausibility are problematic and accordingly it is necessary to consider the Board's alternative findings on the state protection issue. The Board stated at pages 3 and 4 of its reasons:

In the event that the claimant's story is credible, the panel finds that there is adequate state protection available to him. The claimant said that he reported the assassination attempt to the police, and that they had made light of it. Based on the claimant's testimony, the panel finds that the police probably investigated the matter, and came to the conclusion that it might be a case of armed robbery. The finding that the police did investigate, is supported by the fact that the claimant said that he could obtain a copy of the police report.

The panel notes the government's concerns respecting ritual violence and the measures taken by the Obasanjo government to strengthen the police in their efforts at improving the rampant criminality in Nigeria. The documentary evidence shows specific instances of police arresting perpetrators of crime, which result in court appearances and judicial action. The documentary evidence shows that people do take complaints to the police and that the police do investigate. It further shows that even if the police officers refuse to investigate because of their own involvement, the complaint can be taken to a higher authority.

The documentary evidence further shows that the public's unwillingness to provide information to the police is a factor in hampering the police work. The panel finds that this is the case in this claim. The claimant testified that he had reported the threat by the elders on his life to the police. However, he had not given the police their names despite the fact that he knew the names of three of the six threatening elders. He testified the police did not ask for their names, and therefore he did not report them. The panel finds that if the claimant had co-operated with the police, it is likely that he would have received adequate protection from them.

The claimant sought to show that such adequate protection does not exist in Nigeria, by citing the alleged murder of two people who were sacrificed because of their refusal. However, he could provide no information respecting whether there was any police investigation in the killings. The claimant testified that he had been told of these incidents at age twelve or thirteen and did not know exactly when these two persons were killed. The panel finds there is insufficient evidence to find that the two apparently similarly situated persons had not receive adequate protection from the state.

Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that the claimant has not provided clear and convincing evidence that the state is not able to protect him.

[4] In my view, these findings on state protection were open to the Board. The Board is entitled to prefer documentary evidence to that of the applicant (see Zhou v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J, No. 1087 (F.C.A.). In that case, Justice Linden also stated:

There is no general obligation on the Board to point out specifically any and all items of documentary evidence on which it might rely.

[5] The applicant's evidence regarding the adequacy of state protection existing in Nigeria with respect to similarly situated persons was based on stories he was told 20 years ago. As the Board stated, this is insufficient evidence upon which to find that similarly situated persons had not received adequate protection from the state. Although the Board's comments on "armed robbery" are questionable, in my view the Board's reasons and findings on the issue of state protection are reasonable and open to it.

[6] The application for judicial review is dismissed.

"W. P. McKeown"

J.F.C.C.

Toronto, Ontario

June 27, 2001

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET: IMM-4974-00

STYLE OF CAUSE: EMMANUEL CHUKWUDI SUNDAY OKOYE

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2001

PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY: McKEOWN J.

DATED: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2001

APPEARANCES: Mr. A. Emeka Nwoko

For the Applicant

Mr. Matthew Oommen

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: A. Emeka Nwoko

Barrister & Solicitor

4101 Steeles Ave. West

Suite 201

Toronto, Ontario

M3N 1V7

For the Applicant

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada