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

Facts

The author, a Nigerian man affiliated with the Biafran movement and living with HIV, faced challenges in Canada regarding his asylum status due to allegations of document forgery. These allegations led to the revocation of his asylum and subsequent deportation to Nigeria. Despite his claims that returning to Nigeria would expose him to torture or death, and concerns about inadequate medical care for his HIV, his legal efforts to remain in Canada were unsuccessful due to credibility concerns. Upon deportation and eventual return to Canada, the author faced criminal charges unrelated to his asylum case. He criticized the Canadian pre-removal risk assessment process, arguing that it failed to adequately consider his evidence or respect his previously granted refugee status. He also claimed that he reported abuse following his deportation but was denied proper medical care.

The author asserts that deporting him to Nigeria would violate his rights under articles 6, 7, and 9 (1) of the Covenant, as he faces the risk of torture or death due to his involvement with the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra. He highlights that Nigerian authorities have been informed of his life sentence there. He argues that the State improperly informed Nigerian authorities about him, contrary to guidelines recommending independent sources for refugee status determinations. Additionally, he points to the risks posed by his HIV-positive status, which could subject him to discrimination and inadequate medical care in Nigeria. He also raises concerns about the ineffectiveness of pre-removal risk assessments and the lack of consideration for his health needs and potential persecution by authorities and anti-gay groups in Nigeria. The author accuses the Canada Border Services Agency of conspiring against him, exacerbating his legal and health challenges during his time in Canadian custody. He further contends that the State violated both international and domestic laws by revoking his refugee status and compromising the confidentiality of asylum proceedings by contacting his persecutors in Nigeria. Lastly, he argues that the verification process for the court judgment against him violated his rights under article 17 of the Covenant.

Admissibility

Although the State argued that the author had not exhausted domestic remedies since an appeal was pending, it was later rejected, meeting the Committee's requirements. The author's claim of a privacy rights violation under article 17 was deemed inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation. Similarly, his claim that deportation to Nigeria would violate his rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant was also found inadmissible, as he failed to provide substantial evidence or demonstrate a real risk of severe violation. However, the Committee determined that the claims under articles 6 and 7 were 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 his 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 thorough examination of his case by domestic authorities, determining that there was no credible risk of irreparable harm.