Docket: IMM-7514-13
Citation: 2014 FC 581
Winnipeg, Manitoba, June 18, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
OLUYEMISI AKINBINU
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
Ms. Oluyemisi Akinbinu
(the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and
Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “Board”), dated October 31,
2013. In its decision, the Board determined that the Applicant is neither a
Convention Refugee nor a person in need of protection within the meaning of
Sections 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, S.C. 2001, c.27 (the “Act”).
The Applicant, a
female citizen of Nigeria, left her country of citizenship in 2003. She
originally came to Canada on a work permit to work as a nurse. Between 2003 and
2013, she variously worked and studied in Canada.
The Applicant
claimed refugee protection on May 24, 2013, claiming to fear her estranged
husband and his family in Nigeria. She alleged that she had been physically,
sexually and mentally abused by her husband, to the point that she left her
family home in 1996, although she did not leave Nigeria until 2003.
The Applicant also
advanced a fear of Boko Haram, an extremist Muslim group in Nigeria who targets
Christians for attack. The Applicant is a Christian.
The Board found
that the Applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Nigeria.
Although she had suffered abuse in her marriage, that was insufficient to establish
a well founded fear of persecution at the present time.
The Board also
found that the risk posed to the Applicant from Boko Haram was part of
generalized country conditions in Nigeria and that the Applicant herself would
not personally be in danger if returned to Nigeria.
Further, the Board
found that there were no “compelling reasons” arising from past persecution, as
contemplated by subsection 108(4) of the Act, such that the Applicant should
not be removed from Canada.
Insofar as the
Board’s decision turns upon questions of mixed fact and law, the applicable
standard of review is that of reasonableness; see the decision in Dunsmuir
v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at paragraph 53.
Having regard to
the evidence before the Board, I am satisfied that the Board’s decision meets
the standard of “reasonableness” as discussed in Dunsmuir, supra, at
paragraph 47, that is it displays “justification,
transparency and intelligibility”.
The Applicant’s
submissions in this judicial review focus on the Board’s failure to consider
and apply the Gender Guidelines. In my opinion, this argument is
misplaced. Although the Board did not specifically refer to the Guidelines
in its decision, the reasons show sensitivity to the issues covered by those Guidelines.
The Applicant also
argues that the Board erred in finding that the “compelling reasons” exception
found at subsection 108(4) of the Act does not apply in the circumstances of
this case. In my opinion, the Board reasonably applied the proper legal test
for section 108(4) to the evidence before it.
I am not persuaded
that the Board committed any reviewable error and this application for judicial
review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.
THIS COURT
ORDERS that the application for judicial review is
dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.
“E. Heneghan”
Email this Content