Date: 20100616
Docket: IMM-5689-09
Citation: 2010 FC 651
Toronto, Ontario, June 16,
2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
NIKE OKAFOR
SYDNEY JUNIOR OKAFOR (Minor)
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), of the decision of
a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer (the Officer), where Nike Okafor and Sydney
Junior Okafor were found not be persons described in sections 96 or 97 of the
Act.
[2]
At
the beginning of the hearing, the parties agreed that the name of the minor
should be spelled “Sydney” instead of “Sidney”.
[3]
The
Applicant, Nike Okafor and her minor son, Sydney Junior Okafor, are both
citizens of Nigeria. They
arrived in Canada in 2003 and made a claim for refugee protection. The basis of
the claim was that the Applicant, a Muslim who converted to Christianity,
feared persecution at the hands of the Muslim community. That claim for refugee
protection was denied on June 2, 2005 due to credibility issues.
[4]
In
June 2006, the Applicants applied for a Pre-Removal risk assessment (PRRA)
under the Act. That application was refused on September 17, 2009 and is the
subject of this judicial review.
[5]
At a
hearing, the Applicants argued that the Officer should have held an oral
hearing pursuant to section 167 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations. They submitted that although the Officer referred to a lack of
sufficient evidence, credibility was clearly the main factor in the rejection
of their PRRA application. They reason that as credibility was a deciding
factor in their application, an oral hearing should have been granted and the
failure to do so is a reviewable error.
[6]
The
standard of review on questions of procedural fairness is correctness (Soares
v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 190, 308 F.T.R. 280).
[7]
Paragraph
113(b) of the Act makes it clear that a hearing is to be held in exceptional
circumstances. The factors to consider are found in section 167 of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations. Having reviewed all of the
circumstances under which a hearing must be held, I conclude that a hearing was
not required. None of the enumerated factors were met and there was no breach
of the regulatory requirement.
[8]
The
Officer did not make a veiled or disguised credibility finding as alleged by
the Applicants. The Officer’s decision is very well reasoned and provides a
complete analysis, including extensive reliance on objective evidence, of all the
new alleged fears claimed by the Applicants in their PRRA application namely:
from the late husband's family, child sexual exploitation and human trafficking
(Applicants’ record, pages 15 to 18). It is clear
that the Officer did not take issue with the Applicants’ credibility but found
the evidence to be wholly insufficient.
[9]
The
Court’s intervention is not warranted.
[10]
No
question for certification was submitted and none arises.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the
application for judicial review be dismissed. No question is certified.
“Michel
Beaudry”
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS
OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5689-09
STYLE
OF CAUSE: NIKE OKAFOR
SYDNEY JUNIOR OKAFOR (Minor)
v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 15,
2010
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: Beaudry
J.
DATED: June
16, 2010
APPEARANCES:
Richard Odeleye FOR
THE APPLICANTS
Stephen Jarvis FOR
THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Babablola, Odeleye FOR
THE APPLICANTS
Toronto, Ontario
Myles J. Kirvan FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content