MA5-06551

Immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié Section de la protection des réfugiés RPD File # / No. dossier SPR : MA5-06551 Private Proceeding Huis clos Claimant(s) Demandeur(e)s d'asile XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Date(s) of Hearing Date(s) de l'audience January 9th, 2007 Place of Hearing Lieu de l'audience Montréal, Québec Date of decision Date de la décision March 27th, 2007 Panel Tribunal Louise Robic Claimant's Counsel Conseil du demandeur d'asile Me Annick Legault Refugee Protection Officer Agent de la protection des réfugiés ?deposit of documents? Designated representative Représentant désigné N/A Minister's Counsel Conseil du ministre Madeleine Gagnon ?deposit of documents? You can obtain the translation of these reasons for decision in the other official language by writing to the Editing and Translation Services Directorate of the IRB at the following address: 344 Slater Street, 14th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K1, by e-mail to translation@irb.gc.ca or by facsimile at (613) 947-3213. La Direction des services de révision et de traduction de la CISR peut vous procurer les présents motifs de décision dans l'autre langue officielle. Vous n'avez qu'à en faire la demande par écrit à l'adresse suivante : 344, rue Slater, 14e étage, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0K1, par courriel à traduction@cisr.gc.ca ou par télécopie au (613) 947-3213. The following are the reasons for the decision in the refugee protection claim of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX `, a citizen of Nigeria, who claims a well-founded fear of persecution in his country because of his political opinions. For the same reasons he claims to be a person in need of protection. THE FACTS ALLEGED The claimant alleged in his narrative that he was being persecuted by the authorities because of his activities within the XXXXX organization. He would have been arrested with members of his group on XXXXX, 2004, following a sit-at-home order that took place on XXXXX, 2004. He was tortured and dehumanized. He was released on XXXXX, 2004. On XXXXX, 2004, the claimant travelled to Venezuela to seek protection. However, having found their Human Rights record inadequate, he requested a visa from the Canadian Embassy in Caracas, which was refused. The claimant returned to Nigeria on XXXXX, 2004 to continue his work for an independent XXXXX. On XXXXX, 2005, the claimant was arrested from his office. He was tortured. He was released after payment of a bribe and on condition that his disappearance be seen as an escape and that he had to leave the country immediately because he would be declared a wanted person by the authorities. The claimant alleged he left Nigeria on XXXXX, 2005 and arrived in Brazil on XXXXX, 2005. He left Brazil for Cuba on XXXXX, 2005. On November 7th, 2005, he left Cuba for Canada using a stolen Canadian passport, which he allegedly destroyed on the plane. Upon his arrival in Canada, the claimant was detained for lack of credible identity documents. After receipt of his Nigerian passport, and I.D. card, the claimant was released on December 9th, 2005, under strict conditions (M-11)1. The claimant alleged that his life would be in danger if he was to return to his country. Identity Identity is not an issue in this case, as the claimant produced his passport and I.D. card. ANALYSIS The panel has great misgivings concerning this claim. The claimant has been lying since his arrival in Canada (M-32, M-53, M-64, M-75, M-86, M-107 and M-11)8. The claimant left his country the first time on XXXXX, 2004 and travelled to Venezuela where he spent three months, after obtaining false working papers. However, he did not ask for asylum although he alleged he had left his country with the intention of doing so. When questioned by an Immigration officer about the reasons he had not sought protection from this country, a signatory of the UN 1967 Protocol, he answered that after he found out that the Human Rights record of the country was not what he believed, and that the people were biased against blacks, he decided to come to Canada and applied for a Canadian visa at our embassy, which was refused. He then returned to Nigeria where he continued to operate his XXXXX business and his activities within the XXXXX organization. Firstly, the panel rejects the claimant's explanations for not seeking asylum in Venezuela, if indeed his intention upon leaving his country was to seek asylum in Venezuela. The claimant should have done so upon his arrival or soon thereafter instead of obtaining false working papers. Secondly, these explanations are in contradiction with his testimony at the hearing, when he said that when he left his country, his intention was to come to Canada. Thirdly, the fact that the claimant returned to his country and to his activities is certainly not compatible with the actions of a person whose life is in danger. Moreover, as the claimant had a visa for the European Community and a visa for Cuba, he had other options open to him. Yet he chose to return to his country where he alleged his life was in danger, which leads the panel to conclude that the claimant did not fear returning to his country or his actions make no sense. Considering the above, and although the panel accepts that the claimant may be a member of XXXXX (P-13)9, the panel does not believe that the claimant was arrested on XXXXX 2004 and left his country because his life was in danger. In document (M-11), we could read that the claimant was one of XXXXX persons who had been chosen to attend a training session in XXXXX. However, their visa applications had been refused, which again leads the panel to conclude that the claimant's first intention was not to seek asylum but to come to Canada on business. His visa having been refused, he had to travel with a stolen Canadian passport, which he tried to deny until he was showed the baggage tags on his luggage baring the name of the owner of the stolen passport (M-5). In her observation, the claimant's counsel blamed the psychological state of her client for the numerous misunderstandings and cited documents P-2 and P-4 to attest to her client's condition. However, the panel gives no probative value to these documents. Firstly, although the claimant could suffer from depression, the assessment done by a Dr. XXXXX (P-2)10 and a report from a social worker (P-4)11 could certainly not be called psychological reports which are done by bona fides psychologists who explain in detail the method used to arrive at their diagnosis. The panel also examined the letter from the claimant's wife (P-5)12. The panel gives no probative value to these letters which it considers self-serving. The panel also has some doubts as to the veracity of the information contained in document (P-5), a letter from the Chief Provincial Administrator. The claimant alleged that there were no warrants in his name following his arrest of XXXXX, 2005. His name did not appear anywhere like many that are arrested, they simply are picked up, thrown in jail and forgotten, their families don't even know where they are. If they do find out, they simply pay a bribe and they are let go. In such circumstances, there is no reason for the police to be looking for him. Moreover, as written in the letter, the claimant has been replaced as XXXXX XXXXX and his replacement "is doing fine". Why then would the police not arrest him and yet be looking for the claimant who he alleged has committed no crime and is not wanted by the authorities. The alleged administrator also wrote that "everybody has gone underground, but the office is still running, which the panel finds to be a serious contradiction. The panel gives no probative value to this document. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the panel finds that the claimant, XXXXX XXXXX, is not a "Convention refugee"13 nor a "person in need of protection"14. Louise Robic Louise Robic March 27th, 2007 Date rc 1 M-11 : Copy of Detention review completed by Marilyne Trudeau, Minister's counsel, CBSA, on December 9th, 2005, concerning the claimant. 2 M-3 : Copy of the " page 3 of 6 " of the Background information document, completed on November 8th, 2005 by the claimant. 3 M-5 : Copy of Immigration officer notes completed by Warren Oke, Immigration Officer, CBSA, on November 8th, 2005 concerning the claimant. 4 M-6 : Copy of Detention review hearing (48-hours) completed by a Minister's Counsel concerning the claimant. 5 M-7 : Copy of recommendation notes completed by René Cantara, Enforcement Officer, CBSA, dated on November 16th, 2005, concerning the claimant. 6 M-8 : Copy of Detention review completed by Marilyne Trudeau, Minister's Counsel, CBSA, on November 17th, 2005, concerning the claimant. 7 M-10 : Copy of recommendation notes completed by René Cantara, Enforcement Officer, CBSA, dated on December 7th, 2005, concerning the claimant. 8 M-11 : Copy of Detention review completed by Marilyne Trudeau, Minister's Counsel, CBSA, on December 9th, 2005, concerning the claimant. 9 P-13 : " Tuque " and wristband of certain official XXXXX members, XXXXX Membership form and XXXXX Membership card. 10 P-2 : Letter from Dre XXXXX attending physician of claimant. 11 P-4 : Psychological report. 12 P-5 : Letters from claimant's wife, dated the XXXXX of XXXXX 2006 and the other one dated XXXXX, of XXXXX 2006. 13 " 96. A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, (a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reasons of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or (b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country." 14 " 97. (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally (a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or (b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if (i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country, (ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country, (iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and (iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care." REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / POLITICAL OPINION / ARREST / TORTURE / SOJOURNING / SAFE THIRD COUNTRY / REAVAILMENT / LYING TO VISA OFFICER / PASSPORTS / FORGERY / MALE / NEGATIVE / NIGERIA --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- RPD File # / No. dossier SPR : MA5-06551 6