Saheed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Saheed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2022-05-18
Neutral citation
2022 FC 742
File numbers
IMM-4066-21
Decision Content
Date: 20220518
Docket: IMM-4066-21
Citation: 2022 FC 742
St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, May 18, 2022
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
SALIU SHOLA SAHEED
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Saliu Shola Saheed (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD”), dismissing his appeal from the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”).
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria, from Kwara State. He fears persecution from the Eiye Confraternity. The RAD found that the determinative issue is the availability of an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”) in Port Harcourt or Abuja.
[3] The Applicant argues that the finding about an IFA is unreasonable.
[4] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the finding is supported by the evidence and is reasonable.
[5] The decision of the RAD is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov (2019), 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.).
[6] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on that decision”; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.
[7] The legal test for an IFA is addressed in Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1991), 140 N.R. 138.
[8] The Applicant takes issue with the RAD’s treatment of the second prong of this test.
[9] Upon review of the materials filed and the written and oral submissions of the parties, I am not persuaded that the IFA finding of the RAD is unreasonable.
[10] In the result, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.
JUDGMENT in IMM-4066-21
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
"E. Heneghan"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
IMM-4066-21
STYLE OF CAUSE:
SALIU SHOLA SAHEED v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING:
HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN TORONTO, ONTARIO AND ST. JOHN’S, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
DATE OF HEARING:
MAY 10, 2022
REASONS AND JUDGMENT:
HENEGHAN J.
DATED:
MAY 18, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Sunday O. Adeyemi
FOR THE APPLICANT
Laura Christodoulides
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Law Office of Sunday Adeyemi
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT