Date:
20130312
Docket:
IMM-2599-12
Citation:
2013 FC 224
Ottawa, Ontario,
March 12, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
KINGSLEY IDUGBOE
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Mr
Kingsley Idugboe worked as an engineer in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria. A militant group called the Egbesu boys extracted a 30% royalty from individuals
and companies operating in that region. Mr Idugboe was threatened with death if
he did not comply. Another group, the Movement for the Emancipation of the
Niger Delta (MEND), made similar demands. Mr Idugboe contacted police but was
told there was nothing they could do.
[2]
In
2010, because he had failed to pay, the Egbesu boys came looking for Mr
Idugboe. He fled to Benin City and then to Jos, where he contacted police. Again,
he was told the police could not help. Some men came looking for Mr Idugboe in
Jos, so he fled to Lagos and, from there, to Canada, where he sought refugee
protection.
[3]
A
panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board denied Mr Idugboe’s claim, even
though it largely believed his account of events. The Board found that Mr
Idugboe had not been persecuted on a ground recognized by the Refugee
Convention. Rather, he had been a victim of crime. In any case, the Board also
found that Mr Idugboe could live safely and find employment in Lagos;
therefore, he had an internal flight alternative (IFA) within Nigeria.
[4]
Mr
Idugboe maintains that the Board erred by finding that he was the victim of
generalized criminality. In addition, he contends that he was treated unfairly
because the Board allowed him to make submissions only on the issue of IFA, yet
it rendered its decision on broader grounds. Further, Mr Idugboe suggests that
the Board unreasonably concluded that he had an IFA in Lagos. He asks me to
quash the Board’s decision and order another panel to reconsider his claim.
[5]
I
am satisfied that the Board’s conclusion on an IFA was not unreasonable. There
was little evidence showing that Mr. Idugboe would be at risk in Lagos, and he conceded that he could easily find employment there. Therefore, it is
unnecessary for me to consider the other issues Mr Idugboe raises.
II. The Board’s decision
[6]
The
Board accepted Mr Idugboe’s assertion that he was threatened by the Egbesu
boys. However, his fear of the Egbesu boys, a criminal organization, was not
tied to a Convention ground – race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion. Therefore, there was no basis
for a claim of refugee protection under s 96 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] (statutory provisions cited are set
out in an Annex). Similarly, Mr Idugboe faced a generalized, not a
personalized, risk of mistreatment and, accordingly, he did not have a claim
under s 97 of IRPA.
[7]
The
Board also found that Mr Idugboe had an IFA in Lagos because there was no
evidence that the Egbesu boys operate there and, as an engineer, he could
reasonably be expected to relocate there.
III. Was the Board’s
conclusion on an IFA unreasonable?
[8]
Mr
Idugboe argues that the Egbesu boys have the capacity to seek out anyone,
anywhere in Nigeria, even though their principal operations are in the Niger
Delta.
[9]
The
burden fell on Mr Idugboe to show that he faced a substantial risk of mistreatment
from the Egbesu boys in Lagos. The evidence before the Board did not support
that proposition.
[10]
The
documentary evidence showed that the Egbesu boys, as well as MEND, confine
their operations to the Niger Delta region, and that MEND was responsible for a
single bombing in Abuja. Further, as a result of a government amnesty, the
level of violence from the Egbesu boys has declined in recent years. Finally,
Mr Idugboe spent a month in Lagos before travelling to Canada and he had no difficulties there. Mr Idugboe concedes that he could find employment
in Lagos.
[11]
I
accept, as Mr Idugboe argues, that he genuinely fears the Egbesu boys and it
would theoretically be possible for them to find him in Lagos if they wished.
However, that is not sufficiant. Mr Idugboe had to demonstrate that he would
actually be at risk in Lagos. His claim is speculative, not based on the
evidence.
[12]
Accordingly,
I cannot conclude that the Board’s finding that Mr Idugboe had an IFA in Lagos was unreasonable.
IV. Conclusion and
Disposition
[13]
There
was little evidence before the Board suggesting that Mr Idugboe would be at
risk from the Egbesu boys in Lagos. Mr Idugboe conceded that he could find
employment there. Therefore, the Board’s conclusion that Mr Idugboe had an IFA
in Lagos fell within the range of defensible outcomes based on the facts and
the law. It was not unreasonable. I must, therefore, dismiss this application
for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance
for me to certify, and none is stated.
[13]
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1. The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Annex “A”
|
Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27
Convention refugee
96. A Convention
refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group or political opinion,
(a) is outside each of
their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear,
unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or
(b) not having a country
of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and
is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.
Person in need of protection
97. (1) A person in
need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or
countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality,
their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally
(a) to a danger,
believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of
Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or
(b) to a risk to their
life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if
(i) the person is unable or,
because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country,
(ii) the risk would be faced by
the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other
individuals in or from that country,
(iii) the risk is not inherent
or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted
international standards, and
(iv) the risk is not caused by
the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.
Person in need of protection
(2) A person in Canada who is a member of a class of persons prescribed by the regulations as being in need
of protection is also a person in need of protection.
|
Loi sur l’immigration et la
protection des réfugiés,
LC 2001, ch 27
Définition de « réfugié »
96. A qualité de
réfugié au sens de la Convention — le réfugié — la personne qui, craignant
avec raison d’être persécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion, de sa
nationalité, de son appartenance à un groupe social ou de ses opinions
politiques :
a) soit se trouve hors de tout
pays dont elle a la nationalité et ne peut ou, du fait de cette crainte, ne
veut se réclamer de la protection de chacun de ces pays;
b) soit, si elle n’a pas de
nationalité et se trouve hors du pays dans lequel elle avait sa résidence
habituelle, ne peut ni, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut y retourner.
Personne à protéger
97. (1) A qualité de
personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et serait
personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la nationalité ou,
si elle n’a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa résidence
habituelle, exposée :
a) soit au risque, s’il y a des
motifs sérieux de le croire, d’être soumise à la torture au sens de l’article
premier de la Convention contre la torture;
b) soit à une menace à sa vie ou
au risque de traitements ou peines cruels et inusités dans le cas suivant :
(i) elle ne peut ou, de ce
fait, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de ce pays,
(ii) elle y est exposée en tout
lieu de ce pays alors que d’autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui
s’y trouvent ne le sont généralement pas,
(iii) la menace ou le risque ne
résulte pas de sanctions légitimes — sauf celles infligées au mépris des
normes internationales — et inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles,
(iv) la menace ou le risque ne
résulte pas de l’incapacité du pays de fournir des soins médicaux ou de santé
adéquats.
Personne à protéger
(2) A également qualité de
personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et fait partie d’une
catégorie de personnes auxquelles est reconnu par règlement le besoin de
protection.
|
Email this Content