Date: 20030908
Docket: IMM-5495-01
Citation: 2003 FC 1041
Ottawa (Ontario), September 8, 2003
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais
BETWEEN:
ZOSU RAZAQ WHENU
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [the Board] dated December 12, 2001, wherein it determined that Zosu Razaq Whenu [the Applicant] was not a Convention refugee.
FACTS
[2] The Applicant is a 42-year old male and a citizen of Nigeria. He arrived in Canada on January 15, 2001, and claimed refugee status on that day. His claim was heard by the Board on November 15, 2001.
ISSUES
[3] 1. Did the Board err in law in concluding that the Applicant was not a refugee because he had little knowledge about his persecutors?
2. Did the Board err in law in concluding that an internal flight alternative [IFA] was available to the Applicant?
ANALYSIS
1. Did the Board err in law in concluding that the Applicant was not a refugee because he had little knowledge about his persecutors?
[4] The Applicant submits that the Board gave a single reason to deny his claim: that he had little knowledge of his persecutors. The Respondent argues that the Board did not deny the Applicant's claim because he knew little about his persecutors, but rather because it preferred the documentary evidence to the Applicant's story that he could not get protection from the police.
[5] I have carefully reviewed the transcript; in my view, it was not unreasonable for the Board to get to the conclusion that the Applicant is not a Convention refugee, pursuant to the evidence provided orally by the Applicant and to the documentary evidence.
[6] In fact, the Applicant was under the impression that his persecutors were "a gang of gansters" (Transcript p. 179) and later suggested that his persecutors could be the OPC. He has shown a very poor knowledge of the OPC in his country of origin.
[7] The Board was entitled, as it did, to give more weight to the documentary evidence than to the Applicant's testimony in assessing the state protection referring particularly to the firm reactions by the government to the violent actions of the OPC.
2. Did the Board err in law in concluding that an IFA was available to the Applicant?
[8] The Board raised the possibility of an IFA (Transcript pp. 222, 223):
Q. Why can't you go with your family and live elsewhere since you are a tailor you have a profession, why is it that you can't move with your family away from where this incident happened, and settle down in another place in Nigeria?
A. Yes, right now the OPC there's nowhere safe in Nigeria from them, specially they are looking after, they are looking for me. And that's why my friend said I have to leave. And that's what the police says, General Investigation Department that I have, that I'm in big trouble that I have to leave their vicinity otherwise they're still going to go after me. And there's no ...
Q. But... carry on...
A. There's nowhere I can go to in that country that it's safe from the OPC. The northern part is the worse, and like I didn't grow up there. Somebody who don't understand the language cannot stay there.
[9] The Applicant suggests that the Board had the obligation to point out to the Applicant a city or an area where he could live peacefully in his country of origin.
[10] As the Respondent demonstrated, once the Board had asked questions to the Applicant regarding an IFA, there is no obligation to the Board to ask a great number of questions on the issue, and the onus is on the Applicant to provide evidence that he would not be safe in any other place of his country.
[11] In Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589, [1993] F.C.J. No. 1172, the Court of Appeal held:
5. In Rasaratnam, supra, this Court also addressed and settled the question of who bears the burden of proof with respect to an IFA. In Rasaratnam, it was argued unsuccessfully before this Court that the onus is not on the claimant to disprove an IFA once the claimant has shown a well-founded fear of persecution in one part of a country. ...
6. In other words, Convention refugee claimants carry the onus of establishing that they satisfy all of the components of the definition of a Convention refugee as set out in subsection 2(1) [Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 1)] of the Act. An important component of that definition may be whether, in a particular case, there is an IFA. But it remains only a component of the final issue to be decided-namely, whether the claimant is a Convention refugee. Accordingly, I do not think it possible to conclude that, in so far as the IFA issue is concerned, the original onus carried by the refugee claimant, should, somehow, be shifted to the Minister.
[12] In my view, the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the Board's conclusion that he has an IFA in other parts of Nigeria was reached in a patently unreasonable manner.
[13] Therefore, the intervention of this Court is not justified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
[14] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[15] The Respondent, with the support of the Applicant, suggested this question for certification:
Does the IRB, in order to make a finding regarding the existence of an IFA, has to point out specifically a place in the country where the Applicant would not be at risk of persecution?
[16] In my view, I do not consider that a serious question of general importance is involved, therefore, no question will be certified.
Pierre Blais
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5495-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: ZOSU RAZAQ WHENU v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal
DATE OF HEARING: August 7th, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: Mr. Justice Blais
APPEARANCES:
Me Claudette Menghile APPLICANT
Me Jocelyne Murphy RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Me Claudette Menghile
10, St. Jacques Ouest FOR APPLICANT
Montréal, Québec
H2Y 1L3
Ministère fédéral de la Justice FOR RESPONDENT
Complexe Guy-Favreau
200, boul. René-Lévesque ouest
Tour Est, 5e étage
Montréal, Québec
H2Z 1X4