During the hearing of the case, the court found no basis in the RAD’s decision to support the plaintiff’s “attempted murder” argument.

The court bases its decision on the plaintiff’s inconsistencies and omissions in his own evidence.

The Tribunal said that another error by the plaintiff was that he failed to credibly establish a forward-looking fear in light of my travel to the United States in 2014 and 2015 and my return in Nigeria after each trip.

“The plaintiff explains that he only realized the seriousness of the threats to his life after the situation escalated following the airport attack in 2018. He suggests saying that this explains why “he returned to Nigeria after each of his trips to the United States in 2018. 2014 and 2015. The plaintiff says he sought police protection in 2014 and is living in hiding,” said the court.

In delivering his judgment on November 15, Whyte Nowak said he agreed with the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) and that Ayonote was reporting speculation because I could not reasonably explain why they presented at a public gathering in 2018, despite claims that they were living in hiding for fear of my life.

Justice Whyte said the applicant had not explained why he did not apply for refugee status at the first opportunity in the United States in 2014 and that there was an inconsistency between his application and his refusal to communicate with my family in 2014 because I couldn’t afford it.

Justice Whyte said after considering the arguments of both sides and taking into account the applicable laws.

He concludes that the applicant has not demonstrated that the SAR’s decision is unreasonable and then dismisses the case.

The Canadian Department of Citizenship has stated that asylum seekers are considered Convention refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and that they face “more than a mere possibility” of persecution if they return to their country of nationality.

The applicant must demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that they are both subjective and objective to justify their fear (Adjei v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1989) 2 FC 680 (FCA) , pp. 682-683).

Furthermore, the applicant is considered a “person in need of protection” under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA, because he has established on an objective basis that his “substantial grounds are true” that he faces a personal risk of torture and a risk of cruel and unusual treatment. or punishment, or a threat of death if they return to the dia kontri of nationality (Li v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 1, para 29, 33).