Ehioghiren v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Ehioghiren v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2006-08-16
Neutral citation
2006 FC 985
File numbers
IMM-4766-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060816
Docket: IMM-4766-05
Citation: 2006 FC 985
Ottawa, Ontario, August 16, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
OSASERE LUGARD EHIOGHIREN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Introduction
[1] The Applicant was found by the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) not to be a refugee or a person in need of protection principally on the grounds of failure to establish identity. This is the judicial review of the Board’s negative decision.
II. Facts
[2] The Applicant claimed that he was born and raised in the town of Iguelaba, Nigeria. He attested that he joined an association, the Iguelaba Social Development Front (the ISDF). He claimed that immediately after joining the ISDF and until he left Nigeria, he, as well as his father, mother and sister, were subjected to assaults by policemen and security agents.
[3] In support of his identity, the Applicant submitted a letter of identification, a birth certificate and an ISDF membership card.
[4] The Board did not accept the letter of identification due to conflicting stories with respect to the picture attached to the letter.
[5] The Board did not accept the authenticity of the birth certificate because (1) outside Lagos, certified copies of birth certificates can only be obtained by local government, and (2) the document looked new even though it was said to have been issued over 30 years ago. The Board noted that the certificate had no date of issue and that fraudulent documents were readily available in Nigeria.
[6] Finally, the Board held that the ISDF card did not establish his identity because there was a conflict between his Personal Information Form (PIF), his testimony and the date of issue on the card.
III. Analysis
[7] While there is some debate about whether identity findings should be subject to review on a standard of patent unreasonableness (see: Gasparyan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 863, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1103 (QL); P.K. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 103, [2005] F.C.J. No. 130 (QL); and Najam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 425, [2004] F.C.J. No. 516 (QL)) or reasonableness simpliciter (see: Rasheed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 587, [2004] F.C.J. No. 715 (QL)), this case does not turn on that issue. For purposes of this analysis, I have adopted the reasonableness simpliciter standard although the Board’s finding on identity is intermingled with credibility findings based on the Applicant’s PIF and his testimony.
[8] The Applicant argued orally that the error in the identity finding was fundamental. Counsel focused his argument on this issue. The Court concurs that if there was merit to this judicial review, it would have been on the identity findings as the other grounds for judicial review had even less basis.
[9] In oral argument the Applicant relied heavily on the recent decision in Adaramasha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1529, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1886 (QL), a case not previously cited. The Respondent was given an opportunity post-hearing to file submissions in respect of this decision.
[10] In Adaramasha, the Court found that the Board made unwarranted assumptions about what a political party identity card should show. The decision has no application to these facts because in this case the Board’s conclusions were based primarily on internal inconsistencies in the Applicant’s own evidence in relation to matters relevant to the identity documentation or otherwise relied on the Board’s specialized knowledge.
[11] I can find nothing unreasonable about the Board’s findings on the identity documents. There was no unwarranted speculation. There was, however, reasoned doubt as to authenticity raised by the Applicant’s own evidence.
[12] Therefore, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question to be certified.
JUDGMENT
IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review is dismissed.
“Michael L. Phelan”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4766-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: OSASERE LUGARD EHIOGHIREN
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 24, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: Phelan J.
DATED: August 16, 2006
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Kingsley I. Jesuorobo
FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. David Cranton
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MR. KINGSLEY I. JESUOROBO
Barrister & Solicitor
North York, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
MR. JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT