KATE IGBINOBA Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2012 FC 405

Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20120413 Docket: IMM-4290-11 Citation: 2012 FC 405 Ottawa, Ontario, this 13 th day of April 2012 Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN: KATE IGBINOBA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Ms.

Kate Igbinoba (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the “Board”), pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001 c. 27, (the “Act”) determining that she is not a Convention refugee and not in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Act. [ 2 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria . At the age of 13 she was married in a traditional ceremony to a wealthy man.

The marriage took place in 1982. [ 3 ] She claims that in 1990, her husband brought her to Italy under the pretext of obtaining an education but, after three weeks of Italian language classes, that training ended and her husband forced her to engage in prostitution. The Applicant became pregnant by her husband in 1990 and returned to Nigeria to give birth to her son. [ 4 ] The Applicant claims that her husband physically abused her throughout the 1990s and that she bears many scars as a result of that abuse. [ 5 ] In 1993, her husband forced her to return to Italy and to resume work as a prostitute.

Her child remained in Nigeria . [ 6 ] The Applicant remained in Italy with her husband from 1993 until either 1997 or 1999. She did not seek protection from the Italian authorities while living in Italy .

[7] Upon returning to Nigeria she attempted to flee from her husband several times but he always located her. As being part of atraditional marriage, her family offered to return the bride price to the husband in order for him to release her from the marriage, but herhusband refused. [8] The Board, although expressing doubt about the Applicant’s overall credibility, accepted that the Applicant was forced byher husband to work as a prostitute in Italy for some years in the 1990s. It was not satisfied as to the credibility of the Applicant’sevidence following her return to Nigeria whether in 1997 or 1999.

It accepted that the Applicant was able to flee from her husbandseveral times in Nigeria and that he found her and brought her back with him. It squarely addressed if the Applicant could access stateprotection and an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”) in Nigeria, and concluded that she could. The Applicant now argues, in thisapplication for judicial review, that the Board committed a reviewable error in reaching these conclusions. [9] The findings as to the availability of state protection and IFA involve questions of mixed fact and law.

Accordingly, theapplicable standard of review is reasonableness (see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 and Meija v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2009 FC 354). [10] The Applicant argues that the Board made selective use of the documentary evidence to reach its conclusions on stateprotection and IFA and further, that it failed to analyze contradictory evidence, for example the contents of the “Report of Joint British-Danish Fact-Finding Mission to Lagos and Abuja” dated October 29, 2008.

I am not persuaded that the Board did so. [11] According to the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Carrillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),2008 FCA 94 , [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636, the Applicant bears the burden of leading evidence of inadequate state protection. He or shemust establish that evidence on a balance of probabilities and that evidence must be of sufficiently probative value to show that stateprotection is inadequate.

In my opinion, the Applicant has not met any of these requirements and has failed to show that the Board’sconclusion on state protection is unreasonable. [12] Concerning the Board’s finding about an IFA, the Applicant argues that the Board failed to properly analyze the documentaryevidence. I reject this contention since it amounts to an invitation for this Court to reweigh the evidence. The Applicant has not shownthat the Board reached an unreasonable conclusion. [13] In the result, this application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification existing.

JUDGMENT The application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board isdismissed. This is not a matter for certification. “E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: IMM-4290-11 STYLE OF CAUSE: KATE IGBINOBA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: April 3, 2012 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: Heneghan J. DATED: April 13, 2012 APPEARANCES : Stella I. Anaele FOR THE APPLICANT Teresa Ramnarine FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Stella I. Anaele FOR THE APPLICANT Toronto , Ontario Myles J. Kirvan FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada