2021 FC, 2021 FC 1108

Date: 20211020 Docket: IMM-256-18 Citation: 2021 FC 1108 Vancouver, British Columbia, October 20, 2021 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:PETER AKHIGBEMENApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr. Peter Akhigbemen (the "“Applicant”") seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, RefugeeProtection Division (the "“RPD”") which denied his claim for refugee protection, pursuant to

section 96 and subsection 97(1),respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "“Act”"). [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria. He sought protection in Canada on the basis of his sexual orientation as a bisexual man. [3] The RPD made negative credibility findings due to omission, inconsistencies and implausibilities in the Applicant’s evidence.

Itfound that he failed to establish his identity as a bisexual man and did not discharge his burden to show that he is at risk of persecution. [4] The Applicant now argues that the RPD unreasonably made negative credibility findings and erroneously ignored the SexualOrientation and Gender Identity and Expression Guidelines (the "“Guidelines”"). [5] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the "“Respondent”") submits that the RPD made no reviewable errors. [6] The decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.Vavilov (2019), 2019 SCC 65 , 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.). [7] 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 thatdecision”"; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99. [8] The negative credibility findings of the RPD are reasonable, in my opinion, in light of the evidence contained in the CertifiedTribunal Record (the "“CTR”").

The CTR supports the findings that the Applicant omitted important information from his Basis ofClaim form. [9] Similarly, the CTR shows a basis for the implausibility findings made by the RPD. [10] The RPD, not the Court, is mandated to make findings of credibility and implausibility. The Applicant’s submissions aboutunreasonable findings are not persuasive. [11] The Guidelines do not operate as to overcome shortcomings in the evidence.

Although the RPD did not directly mention theGuidelines in the decision, the Applicant has not overcome the presumption that the RPD considered all relevant factors, including theGuidelines, in making its decision. [12] In the result, the application for judicial review is dismissed, there is no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT in IMM-256-18 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed, there is no question for certification arising. “E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: IMM-256-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: PETER AKHIGBEMEN v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN ST. JOHN’S, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR AND TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: HENEGHAN J. DATED: OCTOBER 20, 2021 APPEARANCES : Richard Wazana FOR THE APPLICANT Rachel Hepburn Craig FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Wazana Law Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT