Toronto, Ontario, June 7, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Mr.
Francis Umolu Enakhimion (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the
decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the
“Board”), dated August 3, 2006. In that decision the Board determined, on the
basis of the availability of an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”), that the
Applicant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
pursuant to sections 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”).
[2]
The Board
opened its analysis of the Applicant’s claim with the following statement:
… Assuming, without concluding that the claimant has chosen to become a Christian instead of practicing his traditional religion and that he is bisexual, the Panel finds, in the particular circumstances of this case, that internal flight alternative is the determinative issue. The Panel makes no determination that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution, or a risk to his life, or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture.
[3]
The Board
then proceeded to state the test for an IFA and expressed its conclusion that
the Applicant had failed to show that the City of Lagos would not serve an as IFA for him. It
also concluded that the Applicant was not a person in need of protection as
described in subsection 97(1) of the Act.
[4]
In my
opinion, the Board has committed a reviewable error by stating conclusions
without analysing the evidence before it. Even if its conclusions are right, it
is the role of the Board, and not of the Court, to analyse the evidence in
light of the applicable legal standards. It is the role of the Board, and not
of the Court, to write clear reasons for its decision; see Hilo v. Canada (Minister of Employment and
Immigration)
(1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 199 (Fed. C.A.).
[5] In the result, this application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is quashed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Board. Counsel advised that there is no question for certification arising.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is quashed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted Board. There is no question for certification arising.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4721-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: Francis Umolu Enakhimion and the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Kevin Doyle
|
FOR THE APPLICANT |
Ms. Angela Marinos |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kevin Doyle Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT |
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |