No rights violation in deporting a person to Nigeria due to his unproven claims and accessible HIV treatment there

Facts

Ekens Azubuike, a Nigerian affiliated with the Biafran movement living with HIV, faced challenges in Canada concerning his asylum status due to allegations of document forgery, resulting in the revocation of his asylum and deportation to Nigeria. Despite his claims of facing potential torture or death in Nigeria, as well as concerns over lack of medical care for his HIV status, his efforts to remain in Canada through legal avenues were unsuccessful due to credibility concerns. Upon deportation and later return to Canada, Azubuike faced criminal charges unrelated to his asylum case. He criticized the Canadian pre-removal risk assessment process for not adequately considering his evidence or respecting his previously granted refugee status and contended that he did report abuse post-deportation to Canadian authorities, claiming denial of proper medical care.

The author claims that deporting him to Nigeria would violate his rights under articles 6, 7, and 9 (1) of the Covenant, as he faces a real risk of torture or death due to his involvement with the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra, especially since the Nigerian authorities have been informed of his life sentence there. He argues that the State party improperly informed Nigerian authorities about him, contrary to guidelines recommending reliance on independent sources for refugee status determinations. Moreover, he underscores additional risks due to being HIV-positive, which could expose him to severe discrimination and inadequate medical care in Nigeria. He also expresses concerns about the ineffective pre-removal risk assessments and the lack of consideration for his ongoing health needs and the persecution he could face both from the authorities and anti-gay groups in Nigeria. Further complicating his situation, he accuses the Canada Border Services Agency of conspiring against him, exacerbating his plight with legal and health challenges exacerbated by his time in Canadian custody. The author argues that the State party violate international and domestic laws by revoking his refugee status and compromising the confidentiality of asylum proceedings by contacting his persecutors in Nigeria. He also contends that their method of verifying the court judgment against him violated his rights under article 17 of the Covenant.

Admissibility

Although the State argued the author hadn’t exhausted domestic remedies since an appeal was pending, it was later rejected, satisfying the Committee’s requirements. The author’s claim of a privacy rights violation under article 17 was inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation. Similarly, the author’s claim that deportation to Nigeria would violate his rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant was deemed inadmissible, as he failed to provide substantial evidence or demonstrate a real risk of severe violation. However, the Committee found the claims under articles 6 and 7 sufficiently substantiated for admissibility.

Merits

The Committee concluded that the author’s deportation to Nigeria would not violate his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Despite the author’s claims of political persecution and health-related discrimination, the Committee found his allegations unsubstantiated and noted contradictions in his evidence. It also considered the availability of HIV treatment in Nigeria and the comprehensive examination of his case by domestic authorities, determining that there was no credible risk of irreparable harm.