Enakhimion v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 611

Date: 20070607

Docket: IMM-4721-06

Citation: 2007 FC 611

Toronto, Ontario, June 7, 2007

PRESENT:     The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan

BETWEEN:

FRANCIS UMOLU ENAKHIMION

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]               Mr. Francis Umolu Enakhimion (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “Board”), dated August 3, 2006. In that decision the Board determined, on the basis of the availability of an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”), that the Applicant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”).

[2]               The Board opened its analysis of the Applicant’s claim with the following statement:

… Assuming, without concluding that the claimant has chosen to become a Christian instead of practicing his traditional religion and that he is bisexual, the Panel finds, in the particular circumstances of this case, that internal flight alternative is the determinative issue. The Panel makes no determination that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution, or a risk to his life, or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture.

[3]               The Board then proceeded to state the test for an IFA and expressed its conclusion that the Applicant had failed to show that the City of Lagos would not serve an as IFA for him. It also concluded that the Applicant was not a person in need of protection as described in subsection 97(1) of the Act.

[4]               In my opinion, the Board has committed a reviewable error by stating conclusions without analysing the evidence before it. Even if its conclusions are right, it is the role of the Board, and not of the Court, to analyse the evidence in light of the applicable legal standards. It is the role of the Board, and not of the Court, to write clear reasons for its decision; see Hilo v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 199 (Fed. C.A.).

[5]               In the result, this application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is quashed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Board. Counsel advised that there is no question for certification arising.

ORDER

            The application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is quashed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted Board. There is no question for certification arising.

“E. Heneghan”

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          IMM-4721-06

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          Francis Umolu Enakhimion and the Minister of

                                                            Citizenship and Immigration

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                      June 5, 2007

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER:                                   HENEGHAN J.

DATED:                                             June 7, 2007

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: