Ndidi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court headnote
Ndidi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2005-12-08 Neutral citation 2005 FC 1668 File numbers IMM-597-05 Decision Content Date: 20051208 Docket: IMM-597-05 Citation: 2005 FC 1668 Ottawa, Ontario, this 8th day of December, 2005 Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE von FINCKENSTEIN BETWEEN: SOLOMON UGBEKIL NDIDI Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER ( Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for precision and clarification) [1] The Applicant, Solomon Ugbekil Ndidi, is a 29 year old Nigerian who alleges a well-founded fear of persecution because of his membership in a particular social group, the Otta Igabanke association. He fears persecution by the Itsekeri tribe and also fears the Nigerian police and military. [2] His claim was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the ABoard@) on the basis of a lack of credibility. The Board pointed to several inconsistencies between Schedule 1 of the Port of Entry (APOE@) notes, the Personal Information Form (APIF@), and the testimony of the applicant. [3] The applicant is seeking to set the Board=s decision aside on the basis of two points: a) omissions in the POE notes cannot be held against the Applicant as they were made by the immigration officer and not by him; and b) several findings of the Board are allegedly untenable upon a closer examination of the …
Read full judgment
Ndidi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2005-12-08 Neutral citation 2005 FC 1668 File numbers IMM-597-05 Decision Content Date: 20051208 Docket: IMM-597-05 Citation: 2005 FC 1668 Ottawa, Ontario, this 8th day of December, 2005 Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE von FINCKENSTEIN BETWEEN: SOLOMON UGBEKIL NDIDI Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER ( Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for precision and clarification) [1] The Applicant, Solomon Ugbekil Ndidi, is a 29 year old Nigerian who alleges a well-founded fear of persecution because of his membership in a particular social group, the Otta Igabanke association. He fears persecution by the Itsekeri tribe and also fears the Nigerian police and military. [2] His claim was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the ABoard@) on the basis of a lack of credibility. The Board pointed to several inconsistencies between Schedule 1 of the Port of Entry (APOE@) notes, the Personal Information Form (APIF@), and the testimony of the applicant. [3] The applicant is seeking to set the Board=s decision aside on the basis of two points: a) omissions in the POE notes cannot be held against the Applicant as they were made by the immigration officer and not by him; and b) several findings of the Board are allegedly untenable upon a closer examination of the record. [4] Point a) is evidently a legal point and should be determined on a standard of correctness while point b) involves findings of credibility which attract the standard of patent unreasonableness. (see Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315. [5] A close examination of the Board=s decision and record reveals that any omissions held against the Applicant are omissions from the PIF or Schedule 1 of the POE notes. It is noteworthy that Schedule 1 was completed and signed by the Applicant. Thus, there is no room for Applicant=s argument that it is improper to hold omissions by the immigration officer against him given that any omissions in Schedule 1 are the Applicant=s own omissions. I refrain from expressing a view of whether the Applicant=s contention, if borne out by the record, would necessarily lead to a reversal of the decision. [6] As to the findings of credibility, it is noted that the Applicant=s interview was somewhat confusing, and the decision of the Board is not a model of clarity either. However, the key findings for the lack of credibility are undisputed, namely: a) the Applicant purported not to remember the name on the false passport that he used to fly to Canada; b) the Applicant failed to mention the Itsekiri tribe in either Schedule 1 of the POE notes or the PIF, notwithstanding that they are the alleged group that he fears the most and which drove him to exile; c) the contradictions between the Applicant=s work history as stated in the PIF, schedule 1 of the POE notes, and his testimony; and d) the Applicant=s inability to tell his story in a coherent manner without contradictions. [7] While some of the findings of the Board=s decision as challenged by the Applicant could be subject to different interpretations, these key findings are undisputed. [8] Thus, I cannot find that when one takes the decision as a whole, the findings of lack of credibility are patently unreasonable. Accordingly, this application will not succeed. ORDER THIS COURT ORDERS that this application be dismissed. " Konrad W. von Finckenstein " Judge FEDERAL COURT NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-597-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: SOLOMON UGBEKIL NDIDI Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATES OF HEARING: DECEMBER 7, 2005 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: VON FINCKENSTEIN J. DATED: December 8, 2005 APPEARANCES BY: Bola Adetunji FOR THE APPLICANT Leena Jaakkimainen FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Bola Adetunji Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca