Docket: IMM-2081-11
Citation: 2012 FC 99
Ottawa, Ontario, January 25, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington
BETWEEN:
|
|
EDWIN CHINEDU M OKAFOR
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND
ORDER
[1]
If
Mr. Okafor killed a sacred python near the Igbona Village, Ibadan, Nigeria, it may be
that he is at risk of persecution, torture or death throughout the country at
the hands of the Ogboni Fraternity who consider the python to be one of their
gods. However, the member of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration
and Refugee Board of Canada who heard his case did not believe him and so had
no need to characterize the risk he allegedly faced or to determine whether
state protection or an internal flight alternative was available to him.
[2]
The
only issue in this judicial review of that decision is whether the member’s
decision was reasonable. I find that it was.
[3]
According
to Mr. Okafor, he was invited to attend a wedding ceremony by a friend of the
groom. He was not an official guest. As they were early for the ceremony, he
and his friend went hunting in the bushes, whereupon he killed a python. The
villagers apparently consider the python a sacred animal and detained him for
the purpose of killing him in an elaborate ceremony. He managed to escape back
to Lagos where he lived, was tracked down, and then made his way to Port
Harcourt
from where he came to Canada.
[4]
Mr.
Okafor’s counsel makes much of the fact that the member may have gone into too
great detail about the wedding and the village in question and what he should
have known about it. However, the main thrust of her decision was that she was
not even satisfied that the claimant lived in Nigeria at the time
of this incident, which was in July 2008. He did not produce a single document
establishing that he lived in Nigeria after 2005. He claims
to have arrived in Toronto by air on KLM from Amsterdam in September
2008, but, of course, was unable to produce the false British passport on which
he claims to have flown, his boarding pass or baggage tags, as they were all
taken back by the facilitator. What I find difficult to fathom is that none of
the forms he filled in asked him for the name under which he flew, and he was
not asked that question at the refugee hearing, or why he could not have
obtained his own passport.
[5]
The
member rightly relied upon the decision of Mr. Justice Nadon, as he then was,
in Elazi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 191 FTR
205, [2000] FCJ No 212 (QL) where he said at paragraphs 17 and 18:
[17] I
take this opportunity to add that it is entirely reasonable for the Refugee
Division to attach great importance to a claimant's passport and his air
ticket. In my opinion, these documents are essential to establish the
claimant's identity and his journey to come to Canada.
Unless it can be assumed that a refugee status claimant is actually a refugee,
it seems unreasonable to me to ignore the loss of these documents without a
valid explanation. In my view, it is to easy for a claimant to simply state
that he has lost these documents or the facilitator has taken them. If the
Refugee Division insists on these documents being produced, the facilitators
may have to change their methods.
[18] Minimizing the importance of the passport and air ticket as
documents to be produced or ignoring their non-submission for all sorts of
reasons in my opinion only serves to encourage all those whose only purpose is
to take advantage of a system which is intended solely to enable genuine
refugees to come to Canada.
[6]
It
is also noteworthy that Mr. Okafor did not apply for refugee status at the
airport, but rather at an in-land office the day after he allegedly arrived
here. Had he been required to give his “nom de vol”, that could have been
checked out against the passenger manifest.
[7]
Having
found the applicant’s story not to be credible at its core, the member was
justified in discounting the documentation he produced: see Mejia v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1091, [2009] FCJ No 1313 (QL), and
the cases cited therein.
[8]
All
in all, the decision falls well within the reasonableness parameters as
described by the Supreme Court in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9,
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 190.
ORDER
FOR REASONS
GIVEN;
THIS COURT
ORDERS that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
There
is no serious question of general importance to certify.
“Sean Harrington”
Email this Content