Prompt:
What legal tests are applied in this Refugee Protection Division decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada?

RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : TA7-13711 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXXX XXXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of Hearing September 16, 2009 Date(s) de l'audience Place of Hearing Toronto, Ontario Lieu de l'audience Date of Decision September 23, 2009 Date de la décision Panel Tom Pinkney Tribunal Counsel for the Claimant(s) Sina Ogunleye Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du / de la / des demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Tribunal Officer N/A Agent(e) de tribunal Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre INTRODUCTION [1] XXXXX XXXXX, a citizen of Nigeria, claims refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act1 (IRPA). ALLEGATIONS [2] The claimant makes the following allegations. [3] After being born in Lagos, Nigeria in XXXXX 1966, the claimant was educated there before he left to visit the United States of America (U.S.) in 1991. He did not return home until he was deported in 2007. While in the U.S. in XXXXX 1997, he was found guilty of forgery/fraud and sentenced to five years probation, which he served without any further incident. He fathered four children with a common-law wife between 1994 and 2001. By 2003 he became an illegal resident of the U.S., and was deported on or about XXXXX 2007 because of his overstay. [4] Back in Nigeria he soon joined with his father to become involved with the XXXXX XXXXX (XXXXX) political party as an XXXXX. On XXXXX 2007 the family home was burned by thugs associated with the People's Democratic Party (PDP) when the claimant was absent, and his sister died in the fire. Two days later he was kidnapped and tortured for two days by PDP thugs. Political violence was widespread and was not controlled by the Nigerian police who favoured the PDP since it was the national ruling party. When the claimant learned the assailants who had burned the family home were still seeking him, he left Nigeria and came to Canada where he made a refugee claim upon arrival on 26 November 2007. [5] In XXXXX 2009 he was informed by friends in Nigeria that the police are now looking for him as an alleged member of the XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (XXXXX). Since the police have been known to act with impunity in killing real or alleged XXXXX members, the claimant is now even more afraid to return to Nigeria. DETERMINATION [6] For the reasons that follow, I find that the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS Identity [7] Although the claimant apparently has his own Nigerian passport, he elected to travel using a fraudulent passport and other documents in the name of "XXXXX XXXXX".2 In an amended Personal Information Form (PIF) that he submitted in XXXXX 2009, the claimant provided a copy of the biographical page of his Nigerian passport and a copy of his birth registration form.3 The claimant spent approximately sixteen years in the U.S., and a hearings officer at the Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre of the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) has scrutinized his claim. The Minister decided not to intervene in this claim and raised no identity concerns.4 [8] In these circumstances I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is who he says he is, and that he is a national of Nigeria. Credibility [9] The determinative issue in this claim is the claimant's lack of credibility. Evidence that is not contradicted may be rejected if that evidence does not accord with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole.5 In this respect, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated in Faryna v. Chorny:6 In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. The Claimant's Political Profile [10] When the claimant left Nigeria in 1991 he was approximately 25 years old. He testified that his father had been an active participant in the political process for many years, but although he wrote in his amended PIF narrative that he "became involved in politics early",7 in oral testimony he acknowledged that he did not actively participate in politics before he went to the U.S. The only testimony he gave of any early involvement was that he helped his mother serve food and drinks to his father's political associates. [11] He provided contradictory evidence regarding this activity. In the revised PIF narrative he wrote about how his father had supported the late Chief Awolowo (known as Awo) when the National Party of Nigeria cheated Awo out of the presidency in 1978. When he was asked in the hearing as to which political party his father supported at the gatherings in the family home, the claimant replied that it was the NGN, and specifically clarified that he was referring to the National Party of Nigeria. Thus he provided clearly inconsistent evidence. He added that although this party was eventually disbanded, he did not know why. [12] When he was asked about the current political situation in Nigeria, the claimant did provide some correct answers regarding who won some key positions such as Governor in the election of 2007. Regarding his own alleged involvement, the claimant said he joined the XXXXX early in XXXXX 2007 and that he was both an XXXXX and a XXXXX at rallies on behalf of the party. The election for Lagos State was scheduled for April 14, 2007 and the election for the federal positions was scheduled for April 21, 2007. The claimant was asked why a party in the middle of an election campaign would appoint a recently arrived person to such positions. He said he was part of the XXXXX team, but I note he only just joined the party about six weeks before the election, and so it is probable that the campaign was in full swing when the claimant arrived in Nigeria and joined the party. He said he had supported the party financially in 20068 and that the party was interested in his American experiences. However, this latter explanation defies credulity in that the only thing he identified as being in his area of expertise was that he believed Americans ran elections so that people could obtain power through free and fair processes. This would not be news to even moderately informed Nigerians and would unlikely be of significant interest during the intensity of an election in Nigeria. Moreover, the claimant provided no documentary evidence of his alleged financial support in 2006. [13] Given that the claimant alleges he is a target for murder at the hands of political thugs associated with the PDP if he returns to Nigeria, I have considered whether the claimant has established a significant political profile such that he would be so targeted after all this time. The claimant's explanation is that this is typical of Nigerian politics. When it was pointed out to him that these thugs cannot and do not kill all those who support the XXXXX, the claimant replied that his father had a high profile, his family house had been burned and he had gone to the police to seek protection. However, these responses make little sense. His father's political profile would not make the claimant a target, especially so soon after he returned from being away for sixteen years. If the family home was burned (and the claimant provided no documentary evidence of this allegation other than his sister's alleged death certificate), it is more reasonable to assume the father was the target. Given the notorious corruption and inefficiencies of the Nigerian police, the claimant's action in reporting his troubles to the police would be no threat to the PDP thugs in Lagos. [14] A natural reading of the PIF narrative would lead one to believe the claimant was kidnapped for two days from the family home, but the affidavit the claimant submitted refers to his being "traced and abducted on the highway...[where] he was beaten and abandoned...".9 [15] Thus, when I consider all the evidence about the claimant's political activities in Nigeria, I find the evidence is both inconsistent and implausible. I can find no sufficient reasons to believe the claimant would be targeted for death as he alleges. Sequence of Events in Nigeria: February to November 2007 [16] Since 1991 the claimant has been in Nigeria for just more than nine months, from late in XXXXX to late in XXXXX 2007. It was during this short time that the claimant allegedly became such a target of persecution that he had to flee his native country and return to North America. [17] In his revised PIF the claimant provided the following allegations. He indicated that after the family house was burned he was kidnapped when thugs "came back some few days later".10 Yet he also alleged that he moved to XXXXX Street in Lagos on XXXXX and remained living there until he left Nigeria.11 Equally significantly, he also asserted that he worked as a self-employed XXXXX from XXXXX until XXXXX, 2007 in Lagos.12 [18] The claimant's oral testimony was different. He said specifically that he was kidnapped on XXXXX and that he began to think of leaving Nigeria in mid- XXXXX. Given that he already possessed a Nigerian passport, he was asked why he had not simply left the country at that time. He replied that he did not have a visa (to Canada). When he was asked why he had not gone to some other country that did not require a visa, he replied that he was in hiding. He added that he believed the PDP thugs, godfathers and the Nigerian police were looking for him, and so he could never attempt to go through the airport in his own name because "the police are everywhere". [19] This testimony truly defies credulity because if he was able to live at the same place from mid- XXXXX to XXXXX, and if he was able to work as a XXXXX throughout that time, he cannot be said to have been in hiding. From this inconsistent evidence provided by the claimant I take a negative inference regarding his credibility as a witness. The Claimant's Story at the Port of Entry [20] Although the claimant made his refugee claim at the port of entry (XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX), the story he alleged at that time and his testimony at the hearing about the story both raise issues related to his credibility. [21] The claimant arrived in Canada on November 26, 2007. He attempted to enter Canada under the name of "XXXXX XXXXX", allegedly an American citizen.13 His XXXXX XXXXX itinerary for his trip from Lagos to London was in the name of "XXXXX XXXXX",14 and he arrived in Canada in possession of an American passport in the name of "XXXXX XXXXX" along with several bankcards and a Nigerian driver's licence also in XXXXX name.15 The passport and driver's licence have photographs that are very similar in appearance to the claimant. [22] Although the claimant acknowledged traveling under XXXXX name, he said he did not do so upon arrival in Canada. He appears to have chosen his words very carefully when he said, "As soon as I got off (the plane), I said I wanted to declare a refugee claim". This may be literally correct, but it is not the whole truth which the claimant promised to provide at the start of the hearing. The Minister's Delegate Notes (Section 44 Report Review) states the following:16 Subject was intercepted by members of the disembarkation team who had concerns about the validity of the American passport in his possession. He admitted during this review process that if he had entered Canada undetected, he would have traveled to the United States to attempt entry there. [23] Thus the claimant was confronted about his fraudulent travel documents before he left the plane, and his assertion that he claimed refugee status as soon as he got off the plane may be literally true, but misleading as to his behaviour which the documentary evidence suggests was more devious than he admitted at the hearing. Both the notes cited above and the CBSA declaration card suggests if the claimant had not been detected with a fraudulent passport he would have entered Canada as "XXXXX XXXXX". This credibility issue is made worse by the claimant's denying at the hearing that he ever attempted to be admitted as "XXXXX XXXXX" and by his allegation that he had no intentions of going to the United States where his children are. When asked to explain why the officer would write that the claimant admitted an intention to proceed to the U.S. if successful in entering Canada as "XXXXX XXXXX", the claimant replied that he did not say that. Challenged as to why the officer would record it if the claimant never said it, the claimant only replied, "I don't know". I have more faith in the integrity of the Immigration officer who is a trained professional than I do in the testimony of a claimant who has shown by past behaviour a willingness to distort the truth. [24] From this documentation at the port of entry and the highly unsatisfactory testimony provided by the claimant, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant did not intend to stay in Canada unless his disguise as "XXXXX XXXXX" was detected. From this I take a further negative inference with regard to the credibility of the alleged persecution for his political activities that he experienced in Nigeria. [25] In addition, I note that the claimant misrepresented the truth in other ways at the port of entry, and in subsequent evidence. He told the Immigration officer that he is widowed,17 but in oral testimony he denied saying that, and he speculated that perhaps the officer made that conclusion from his saying his children depended on him. This makes little sense. In his subsequent PIFs he said he was "never married".18 However, according to his oral testimony he lived with his children's mother from 1993 until 2005, which would constitute a common-law marriage. I note the claimant had the advice of an experienced and capable counsel in completing his amended PIF, and yet this issue was apparently not addressed. [26] Similarly the claimant told officials at the port of entry that he has two children, and he identified just two when he completed the Citizenship and Immigration information form (IMM5500).19 He did the same on his first PIF.20 He corrected this misinformation in his amended PIF,21 and acknowledged that he has four children living in the U.S. When asked why he originally lied about the children, he first attributed it to his state of mind at the airport, but then soon admitted he did not know why he lied. This issue does not go to the heart of his claim, but it is indicative of someone who is prepared to say whatever he deems to be in his own momentary self-interest. 16 Years in the U.S. [27] The claimant said when he first went to the U.S. in 1991 he intended to return to Nigeria after a few months. He also said he did not know why he failed to do so. This answer is troubling because it either indicates the claimant has failed to reflect upon an important life decision or that he is withholding an answer because he fears the consequences or disapproval from the panel. In any case, it does nothing to instill confidence that the claimant is willing to tell the truth at all times, no matter what the immediate consequences may be. I do not accept that the claimant has no idea why he did not return to Nigeria when he was supposed to do so. In fact, even after he was out of legal status he remained in the U.S. for at least three more years before he was apprehended and deported. [28] The claimant also had a serious criminal conviction in the U.S. for forgery/fraud and served five years of probation.22 Although not serious enough to warrant exclusion under Article 1E of the Convention, the conviction is nevertheless indicative that at the time, the claimant was willing to misrepresent the truth (engage in fraudulent acts) to serve his own desires. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX [29] In his amended PIF narrative the claimant added the allegation that he has now been informed the police in Nigeria have accused him of being a member of the XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX. This allegation makes no sense. If the police in Nigeria want the claimant they can detain him on whatever grounds they wish and deal with him with relative impunity. There is no need for the police to trump up some new charge against the claimant. In reality, while the police may not offer protection to persons who are truly persecuted by PDP thugs, the claimant advanced no meaningful evidence as to why the police would seek to persecute him for their own reasons. Thus I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has simply added another manufactured component to his story to support his claim. Summation [30] These many problems with the claimant's evidence raise the issue of the claimant's credibility as a witness. The claimant has demonstrated a willingness to say whatever seems to serve his immediate interests, and there are numerous serious specific problems associated with the evidence as described above. Thus, when I consider the claimant's evidence as a whole, I am not persuaded that it is truthful. On a balance of probabilities I do not believe the claimant had the experiences he alleges as arising from his political commitment to the XXXXX in Nigeria. Specifically, I do not believe he was persecuted and pursued in the manner he alleges for his short-term involvement with the XXXXX, and more significantly, I do not believe he established such a political profile in Nigeria that he is the ongoing target for murder by PDP thugs. Documentary Evidence [31] The claimant did not provide any documentary evidence regarding his experiences in the U.S., not even to confirm the existence of his children or the circumstances of his deportation from the U.S. [32] He did provide documents23 that seem to support some of his allegations about having problems in Nigeria. However a Norwegian fact-finding report identified that corruption is widespread in Nigeria, and that fraudulent documents and genuine documents with false information are readily available.24 Without engaging in a microscopic examination of these documents, I note that one issue was described previously. I, therefore, give these documents little weight. Credibility Conclusion [33] I am aware that none of the credibility concerns raised here may be sufficient on its own to negate this claim. However, the cumulative effect of all of them is that I do not have sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence upon which to base a determination that the claimant is a Convention refugee. As the Court of Appeal stated in Sheikh:25 Even without disbelieving every word [a claimant] has uttered, a ... panel may reasonably find [that] ... a general finding of a lack of credibility on the part of the [claimant] may conceivably extend to all relevant evidence emanating from his testimony. [34] On a balance of probabilities I find the claimant has manufactured a story to support a bogus refugee claim. In short, I find the claimant not to be a credible witness, and as explained above I do not believe he has a sincerely held fear of persecution in Nigeria on account of his political opinions. He is therefore not a Convention refugee. Section 97(1) [35] The claimant advanced no additional credible evidence to suggest he would face any danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the "Convention Against Torture". [36] Given the finding above that the claimant is not a credible witness, I find that he is not a person who more likely than not, faces a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he were to return to Nigeria. [37] For these reasons, the claimant is not a person in need of protection. CONCLUSION [38] For the foregoing reasons the claim is rejected. (signed) "Tom Pinkney" Tom Pinkney "September 23, 2009" Date REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / POLITICAL OPINION / VICTIM OF CRIMINALITY / PERSONAL INFORMATION FORM / AMENDMENTS / SOJOURNING / CRIMINAL OFFENCE / FALSE DOCUMENTATION / LYING TO A VISA OFFICER / FALSE STATEMENTS / PORT OF ENTRY / TRAVEL DOCUMENT / AUTHENTICITY / MALE / NEGATIVE / NIGERIA 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27. 2 Exhibit R-2, Passport, XXXXX XXXXX, stamped "suspected fraudulent" by the Immigration Officer on XXXXX, 2007. The photograph appears to be that of the claimant. 3 Exhibit C-1(a), pages following Personal Information Form, amended and submitted in its entirety 27 August, 2009. 4 Exhibit M-2, Communication dated 9 March 2009. 5 Alza, Julian Ulises v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3657-94), MacKay, March 26,1996. 6 Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.) at 357, per O'Halloran, J.A. 7 Exhibit C-1(a), item 31, Personal Information Form, narrative line 27, received August 27, 2009. 8 In actuality the party was first formed in September 2006. Exhibit R-1, item 1.3, p.7, Country Fact Sheet: Nigeria, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, August 2007. 9 Exhibit C-2, Affidavit of Support, XXXXX XXXXX, 29 January 2009. 10 Supra, footnote 6, item 31, lines 44 and 45. 11 Ibid, item 11(e). 12 Ibid, item 7(a). 13 Exhibit R-2, Canadian Border Services Agency Declaration Card, signed "XXXXX XXXXX", stamped November 26, 2007. 14 Exhibit R-2, "Your Itinerary: XXXXX XXXXX". 15 Exhibit R-2, Certified true copy of the American passport stamped "suspected fraudulent", three bank cards and a Nigerian driver's licence, all stamped "suspected fraudulent". 16 Exhibit R-2, Minister's Delegate Notes, K. Harris, 27 November 2007. 17 Ibid. 18 Exhibits C-1, Personal Information Form, received 19 December 2007. 19 Exhibit R-2, Information on Individuals Seeking Refugee Protection, p. 3 of 4, signed 27 November 2007. 20 Supra, footnote 15, item 4. 21 Supra, footnote 6, item 4 22 Supra, footnote 6, item 10. 23 Exhibits C-3 and C-4. 24 Exhibit R-1, item 3.9, Response to Information Request NGA43280.E, "Availability of False Documents...", Research Directorate, IRB, 14 January 2005. 25 Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 (C.A.), at 244, per MacGuigan, J.A. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RPD.15.7 (February 12, 2009) Disponible en français RPD.15.7 (February 12, 2009) Disponible en français RPD File No. : TA7-13711 RPD File No. :TA7-13711

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: TA7-13711

### Key Issues
ng about the story both raise issues related to his credibility. [21] The claimant arrived in Canada on November 26, 2007. He attempted to enter Canada under the name of "XXXXX XXX

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: person in need of protection. ANALYSIS Identity [7] Although the claimant apparently has his own Nigerian passport, he elected to travel using a fraudulent passport and other documents in the name of "XXXXX XXXXX".2 In an amended Personal Information Form (PIF) that he submitted in XXXXX 2009, the claimant provided a copy of the

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.