MOTUNRAYO OLATUNDUN OKUYEMI FEHINTOLA OLADUNNI OKUYEMI ADEMOLA OLUWATOFUNMI OKUYEMI Applicants v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2023 FC 808

Date: 20230608 Docket: IMM-9547-21 Citation: 2023 FC 808 Ottawa, Ontario, June 8, 2023 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:MOTUNRAYO OLATUNDUN OKUYEMI FEHINTOLA OLADUNNI OKUYEMI ADEMOLA OLUWATOFUNMI OKUYEMIApplicantsandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent REASONS AND JUDGMENT [1] Ms. Motunrayo Olatundun Okuyemi (the “Principal Applicant”), her daughter Fehintola Oladunni Okuyemi and her son AdemolaOluwatofunmi Okuyemi (collectively “the Applicants”) seek judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board,Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD”).

In its decision, the RAD dismissed the Applicants’ appeal from the decision of the Immigrationand Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”). [2] The Applicants are citizens of Nigeria. They sought protection in Canada on the basis of fears that the father of the children wouldforcibly pursue circumcision of the daughter and ritual marks for the son, and persecute the Principal Applicant due to her opposition tothe enforcement of these rituals. [3] The RPD dismissed the claim on the grounds of credibility.

The RAD agreed with the negative credibility finding. [4] The Applicants now argue that the RAD decided their appeal on issues of credibility that were not "“put”" to them, thereby breachingtheir rights to procedural fairness. [5] The Applicants also submit that the credibility findings were unreasonable. [6] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) argues that there was no breach of procedural fairness and that thedecision of the RAD meets the legal standard of reasonableness. [7] Issues of procedural fairness are reviewable on the standard of correctness; see the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration v.

Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 , [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.). [8] Following the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.

Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 , [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653(S.C.C.), the merits of the decision are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness. [9] 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 bearon the decision”"; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99. [10] I agree with the submissions of the Respondent that there is no breach of procedural fairness in this case. His reliance upon thedecision in Sary v.

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 178, is sound. [11] Credibility was an issue for the RPD, and in this case, it was open for the RAD to identify other elements of the evidence that raisedcredibility concerns, without giving notice to the appellants. [12] All proceedings before the RPD and the RAD are fact-specific. It is always open to the RAD to give notice to appellants of elementsof the evidence that reflect credibility concerns.

In some cases, it may be necessary to give such notice. [13] This is not such a case. [14] As for the challenge to the merits of the decision, I am not persuaded that the RAD reached an unreasonable conclusion, in light ofthe evidence before it. [15] Assessment of credibility is central to the mandate of the RPD. [16] In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.

Huruglica (2016), 2016 FCA 93 , 396 D.L.R. (4th) 527, theFederal Court of Appeal said that the RPD enjoys an advantage over the RAD in the assessment of the credibility of oral evidence. [17] In this case, the RAD agreed with the negative credibility findings of the RPD. That choice lay within the mandate of the RAD.These findings of the RAD are subject to review on the standard of reasonableness, as noted above.

[ 18 ] Upon consideration of the contents of the Certified Tribunal Record and the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that the decision of the RAD meets the applicable standard of review. It is transparent, intelligible and justified. [ 19 ] The Applicants have not shown a reviewable error and this application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification. JUDGMENT in IMM-9547-21 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. “E.

Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-9547-21 STYLE OF CAUSE: MOTUNRAYO OLATUNDUN OKUYEMI ET AL. v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 24, 2023 REASONS AND JUDGMENT: HENEGHAN J. DATED: JUNE 8, 2023 APPEARANCES : Oluwakemi Oduwole FOR THE APPLICANTS Brad Gotkin FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Topmarké Attorneys LLP Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT