Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20050211

Docket: IMM-9144-03

Citation: 2005 FC 232

Ottawa, Ontario, February 11, 2005

Present:           The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish                                    

BETWEEN:

                                               VICTOR UCHENNA EKECHUKWU

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                Victor Uchenna Ekechukwu is a citizen of Nigeria and a practising Catholic. He alleges that he has a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of members of the Ogboni Lodge Secret Society ("OLSS").


[2]                The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected Mr. Ekechukwu's claim, finding that the essential elements of his story were not credible. Mr. Ekechukwu seeks to have that decision set aside, asserting that several of the Board's implausibility and inconsistency findings were perverse. Mr. Ekechukwu also argues that the Board erred in failing to consider his unique circumstances, thereby breaching the duty of fairness owed to him.

Mr. Ekechukwu's Allegations

[3]                Mr. Ekechukwu says that his father had been a member of the OLSS prior to his death in 2001. After his father died, members of the OLSS approached Mr. Ekechukwu and told him that his father had wanted him to be admitted into the OLSS.

[4]                Mr. Ekechukwu says that he told the four individuals that he did not want to join the society because of his Christian faith. This resulted in the cult members beating him with staves. Mr. Ekechukwu says that although he was seriously injured in the attack, he nevertheless managed to escape into the forest.

[5]                The following day, Mr. Ekechukwu says he met a stranger on the road by the forest. This stranger happened to be a doctor. The doctor took Mr. Ekechukwu to the hospital and treated his wounds. Mr. Ekechukwu says that he spent two weeks in the hospital recovering from his injuries. His hospital expenses were all paid for by the doctor.

[6]                This was not the end of the doctor's generosity, however. The doctor went to Mr. Ekechukwu's village, and collected funds to help him flee Nigeria. The doctor then made travel arrangements for Mr. Ekechukwu with a smuggler, and took Mr. Ekechukwu to the airport.


[7]                Mr. Ekechukwu did not produce any medical reports regarding his hospitalization, citing his reluctance to implicate the doctor any further. He was, however, able to show the Board a one-half inch scar on his head and a scar on his hand that he said were the result of the beating that he says that he suffered at the hands of the cult members.

Did the Board Err in Rejecting Mr. Ekechukwu's Claim?

[8]                The disputed findings are all findings of fact. As such the standard of review is patent unreasonableness: Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.).

[9]                It is clear that the Board made two errors in its analysis of Mr. Ekechukwu's claim. Firstly, the Board took issue with the fact that Mr. Ekechukwu referred to the doctor as "Mister" and not "Doctor". Mr. Ekechukwu's affidavit asserts that this is the customary greeting amongst adult male Nigerians. I am satisfied that the reference to the doctor as "Mister" rather than "Doctor" may well reflect a cultural difference, and should not reasonably have been the basis of an implausibility finding. Indeed, the respondent essentially conceded this point.

[10]            Secondly, and more importantly, the Board found that it was improbable that Mr. Ekechukwu's father would have been a member of the OLSS, given that his father was himself a Catholic.


[11]            A review of the documentary evidence before the Board discloses that the OLSS is not a secret society, but a registered voluntary organization akin to a social club. The society was founded by a Christian clergyman, and the leadership of the society now alternates between Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists and Baptists. As a consequence, far from the father's OLSS alleged membership being inconsistent with his Christian faith, from the country condition information before the Board it appears that membership in the OLSS and the Catholic church were quite compatible.

[12]            I note, however, that the Christian orientation of the OLSS, is, a two-edged sword for Mr. Ekechukwu. On the one hand, it demonstrates that the Board erred in its implausibility finding regarding Mr. Ekechukwu's father's membership in the society. On the other hand, however, it undermines Mr. Ekechukwu's explanation of why he was so reluctant to join the OLSS. It is difficult to understand why Mr. Ekechukwu's Christian faith would present an impediment to his joining an organization founded by a Christian and headed by Christians.

[13]            However, even though I am satisfied that the Board erred in the manner noted above, I am not persuaded that the Board's decision should be set aside. As was noted by the Board, Mr. Ekechukwu's story of his assault, hospitalization and flight from Nigeria was rife with coincidences, inconsistencies and implausibilities.

[14]            Mr. Ekechukwu attributes the series of fortuitous coincidences and events that lead to his deliverance from a perilous situation in Nigeria to divine intervention. In contrast, the Board found Mr. Ekechukwu's story to be preposterous. Having regard to the evidence before the Board, I can only say that this conclusion was readily available to it, and should not be disturbed.

Conclusion

[15]            For these reasons, the application is dismissed.

Certification

[16]            Neither party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.     

                                                                       ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1.          This application for judicial review is dismissed.

2.          No serious questionof general importance is certified.

          "Anne L. Mactavish"                

Judge                            


                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                                     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                          IMM-9144-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          VICTOR UCHENNA EKECHUKWU

                                                                                                                                              Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                          Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                    TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                      WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 9, 2005   

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                            MACTAVISH, J.

DATED:                                             FEBRUARY 11, 2005

APPEARANCES BY:                       Mr. Raphael Feldstein

For the Applicant

Mr. Kevin Lunney

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          Mr. Raphael Feldstein

Barrister & Solicitor

50 Richmond St., Suite 101

Toronto, Ontario

M5C 1N7

For the Applicant

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent


FEDERAL COURT

                                                       Date: 20050209

                     Docket: IMM-9144-03

BETWEEN:

VICTOR UCHENNA EKECHUKWU

                                                                  Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                             Respondent

                                                 

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER

                                                 



 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.