CHRIS OGBEIFUN OKOLO DOLAPO TOLULOPE OKOLO DANIEL EHIZOJIE OGBEIFUN EZEKIEL ADEMOLA ODEWALE BLESSING IGUEHI OGBEIFUN EMMANUELLA OSEIWE OGBEIFUN Applicants v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2023 FC 39

Date: 20230110 Docket: IMM-11683-22 Citation: 2023 FC 39 Toronto, Ontario, January 10, 2023 PRESENT: Madam Justice Go BETWEEN:CHRIS OGBEIFUN OKOLODOLAPO TOLULOPE OKOLODANIEL EHIZOJIE OGBEIFUNEZEKIEL ADEMOLA ODEWALEBLESSING IGUEHI OGBEIFUNEMMANUELLA OSEIWE OGBEIFUNApplicantsandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent ORDER AND REASONS [1] Mr. Chris Ogbeifun Okolo, Ms.

Dolapo Tolulope Okolo and their four children [together, the “Applicants”] seek a stay of theirremoval to Nigeria, scheduled for January 15, 2023, until the final determination of their application for leave and for judicial review[ALJR] of a decision dated September 30, 2022, by a Senior Immigration Officer [Officer] denying the Applicants’ Pre-Removal RiskAssessment [PRRA] application [PRRA Decision]. [2] Having considered the material filed by the parties and submissions by counsel, I am dismissing the application for a stay. I. Context [3] The Applicants are citizens of Nigeria.

They left their country for the US in December 2017 where they started an asylum claim, thestatus of which is unknown. The Applicants entered Canada in October 2019 through a non-official port of entry. They were providedwith an opportunity to file a PRRA application. [4] Before leaving Nigeria, the Applicants had been living in Ogun, Lagos and in Osun states. Ms. Okolo worked in the financial sectorfrom 2011 and 2018, while Mr. Okolo served as a police officer for nearly 30 years. Soon after the family fled to the US, Mr.

Okolowent back to Nigeria and resumed his employment as a police officer until May 2019. [5] The Applicants filed their PRRA submissions in 2019 alleging risk of harm and persecution, female genital mutilation [FGM] andforced marriages for their two daughters, all at the hands of Mr. Okolo’s uncle [uncle], a former police officer who had the support ofthe state apparatus and his gang affiliation. The Applicants also listed traditional forces as agents of persecution. [6] The Officer held an oral hearing in August 2021.

The Applicants also filed post-hearing submissions. [7] The Officer found the Applicants generally not credible in their allegations. The Officer also found Port Harcourt to be a safe InternalFlight Alternative [IFA]. As such, the Officer concluded that the Applicants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need ofprotection. II.

Issues and Legal Test for Obtaining a Stay [8] The only issue is whether a stay of removal should be granted in these circumstances. [9] In order to obtain a stay, the Applicants must meet the tripartite test articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Manitoba(Attorney General) v Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd, (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 110, 38 DLR (4th) 321 [Manitoba], RJR-MacDonald v Canada (Attorney General), (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311, 111 DLR (4th) 385 [RJR-MacDonald], and R vCanadian Broadcasting Corp, 2018 SCC 5, which is the test to be applied to stays of removal: Toth v Canada (Minister of Employmentand Immigration) (1988), (FCA), 86 NR 302, 11 ACWS (3d) 440 (FCA). [10] A stay of removal is warranted only if all three elements of the test are satisfied, namely: (

i) the underlying application for judicialreview raises a serious issue; (ii) the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted and the removal order isexecuted; and (iii) the balance of convenience favours the granting of the order. [11] The application of this test is highly-contextual and fact-dependent. As the Supreme Court of Canada explained, "“[u]ltimately, thequestion is whether granting the injunction would be just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case”": Google Inc v EquustekSolutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34 at para 1.

III. Analysis A. Serious Issue [12] The Applicants raise several arguments with respect to the reasonableness of the PRRA Decision in their ALJR, with a focus on theOfficer’s IFA analysis. For the reasons set out below, I do not find there is a serious issue with respect to the Officer’s IFA findings. [13] As a starting point, the Applicants have not included in their motion record or in the record for the ALJR the entirety of the evidencethey submitted to the Officer. Missing from the records was the personal evidence that the Applicants seek to rely on to impugn thePRRA Decision.

Counsel at the hearing explained that they did not represent the Applicants with their PRRA application and thereforedo not have the complete file. [14] I agree with the Respondent that the Applicants purport to challenge the Officer’s findings in an evidentiary vacuum and in effect,have no basis to support their arguments, even as they urge the Court to exercise its discretion to grant them a last minute reprieve fromremoval.

Nevertheless, I will address the arguments raised by the Applicants in support of their stay motion. [15] With respect to the first prong of the IFA test, the Officer appropriately considered all agents of persecution as identified by theApplicants, and noted as follows: • The Applicants had identified the traditional forces as an agent of persecution in inducing FGM and forced marriages of under-agechildren, but had provided insufficient evidence about such traditional forces.

Further, the Applicants testified that they were not awareof any FGM in their family and that such tradition had stopped almost four decades ago. • The Applicants testified that the uncle’s position on FGM was not support by their families and that Ms. Okolo had been acceptedwholeheartedly by her in-laws. • The Applicants have a good relationship with their family members and the evidence showed the family members refused to disclosethe Applicants’ information to the uncle. • The Officer questioned Ms.

Okolo about the discrepancies between her testimony and the information she had provided in a policecomplaint - a copy of which has not been included in the motion record or the ALJR record - to find Ms. Okolo’s testimony as evolving. • The Officer found no evidence to corroborate the Applicants’ allegation that the uncle had a role in killing Mr. Okolo’s father and threebrothers. The Officer took issue with the lack of effort shown to obtain such evidence about such serious allegations, especiallyconsidering Mr.

Okolo’s over thirty years of experience as a police officer and rank of deputy superintendent. [16] Based on these findings, the Officer concluded the Applicants failed to establish they would be personally subject to danger or a riskof persecution throughout Nigeria on a balance of probabilities. [17] The Applicants took issues with the Officer’s findings, including the Officer’s treatment of the supporting letters, which are not infront of the Court.

Based on my review of the PRRA Decision, I agree with the Respondent’s submission that the Applicants undulysimplify and misconstrue the Officer’s analysis, picking out a few passages out of the 22-page long PRRA Decision. [18] Further, I agree with the Respondent that the Officer did not apply a North American lens to finding the Applicants’ testimonyinconsistent regarding the identity of the agents of persecution. Rather, the Officer’s findings were amply supported in light of theApplicants’ evolving testimonies.

Similarly, I reject the Applicants’ submission that the Officer was unreasonable in expecting them toprovide evidence about the alleged murder of Mr. Okolo’s father by their uncle dating back over 30 years, given Mr.

Okolo’s long careeras a police officer in Nigeria. [19] I also agree with the Respondent that the National Documentation Package [NDP] materials do not support the Applicants’arguments, as these materials do not speak to FGM or forced marriages. [20] Concerning the second prong of the IFA analysis, the Applicants submit that the Officer’s analysis was “superficial” and ignoredrelevant information in the NPD. [21] I am not persuaded. [22] The burden was on the Applicants to provide “actual and concrete evidence” of “conditions which would jeopardize [their] life andsafety” in the proposed IFA: Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (FCA), [2001] 2 FC164 (CA) at para 15. [23] The Officer took into account factors such as the Applicants’ educational and employment background and languages spoken toassess their ability to relocate.

The Officer also considered eventual social constraints, cost of living, and assistance from the government,among other factors before concluding the Applicants have not established it would be unduly harsh to expect them to live in PortHarcourt. The Applicants failed to show how any of the Officer’s findings were unreasonable.

The NDP document that the Applicantsseek to rely on talk about the treatment of Christians who relocate from northern parts of Nigeria to Port Harcourt, and does not apply tothe Applicants. [24] In conclusion, I find the Applicants have not established that there are serious issues arising from the underlying ALJR. B. Irreparable Harm

[25] Irreparable harm refers to harm which cannot be compensated in money; it is the nature rather than the magnitude of the harm,which is to be examined: RJR MacDonald, at p. 135. In the context of a stay of removal, the harm usually relates to the risk to theindividual(

s) of harm upon removal from Canada. It may also include specific harms that are demonstrated in regard to any personsdirectly affected by the removal, and who will be remaining in Canada: Tesoro v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),2005 FCA 148. [26] The law requires that irreparable harm be established based on evidence, not assertions or speculation: Atwal v Canada (Citizenshipand Immigration), 2004 FCA 427 at paras 14-15.

However, the test for irreparable harm is also not one of absolute certainty: Suresh vCanada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (FCA), [1999] 4 FC 206 (C.A.) at para 12. [27] I acknowledge the Applicants were ineligible to have their claim referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB] due to theSafe Third Country provisions. Their situation is thus different from claimants who have access to the IRB and may have more statutoryprotections from removal and avenues for challenging a negative risk assessment.

However, the Applicants did have access to the PRRAprocess and they were granted an oral hearing to determine their risks. The Applicants also provided written submissions both pre- andpost- oral hearing.

By bringing this stay motion, the Applicants also have the benefit – however limited – of the Court’s review of theirrisks of harm. [28] As the Respondent points out, it is well established that allegations of risk that have already been assessed and found not to existcannot serve as the basis for irreparable harm on a stay motion: Jackson v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011FC 1381 at para 47, citing Singh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 145 at para 14. [29] The alleged risks that the Applicants are relying on, namely, the threats from the uncle, and the Applicants’ personal circumstancesand country conditions in relocating to the proposed IFA, were already reasonably assessed and rejected by the Officer.

The Applicantshave not presented any new evidence before this Court with respect to their risks of harm. The Applicants have opted to rely on the samerisks that they alleged in their PRRA application, and have chosen not to include any personal evidence in their ALJR record or the staymotion record in support of their request.

I therefore find that the Applicants have failed to demonstrate irreparable harm on the basis ofthese alleged risks. [30] In the context of this case, given my findings on serious issues, I also reject the Applicants’ submission that potential mootness ofthe underlying judicial review application resulting from their removal would amount to irreparable harm. C. Balance of Convenience [31] In light of my findings above, the balance of convenience favours the Respondent.

ORDER in IMM-11683-22 THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for a stay of removal pending the determination of the Applicants’ application forjudicial review is dismissed. "Avvy Yao-Yao Go" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-11683-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: CHRIS OGBEIFUN OKOLO, DOLAPO TOLULOPE OKOLO, DANIELEHIZOJIE OGBEIFUN, EZEKIEL ADEMOLA ODEWALE, BLESSING IGUEHIOGBEIFUN, EMMANUELLA OSEIWE OGBEIFUN v THE MINISTER OFCITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING: HELD VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: January 10, 2023 ORDER AND reasons: GO J. DATED: January 10, 2023 APPEARANCES : Ariel M. Hollander For The Applicants Jennifer Luu For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Ariel M. Hollander Lewis & Associates Toronto, Ontario For The Applicants Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent