Enakhimion v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Enakhimion v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2007-06-07
Neutral citation
2007 FC 611
File numbers
IMM-4721-06
Decision Content
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”
Judge
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:
Mr. Kevin Doyle
FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Angela Marinos
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kevin Doyle
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT