Nigerian Woman Wins Temporary Reprieve from Deportation After Citing Fear of Powerful Businessman
A Nigerian woman facing imminent removal from Canada has been granted an urgent stay of deportation after arguing she faces serious personal risk if returned to her home country. Amina E-Osmund Ekpo, 47, was scheduled to report for deportation earlier this week, but Federal Court Judge Negar Azmudeh intervened on Tuesday, halting the process while a judicial review of her case is considered.
The Core of Ekpo’s Claim
According to the June 16 ruling, Ekpo told immigration authorities she feared a powerful, well-connected businessman in Nigeria who was determined to make her his mistress. Judge Azmudeh wrote that the businessman allegedly “used the state machinery, including the courts, to issue unfounded summonses or evict them from their homes, ultimately forcing them into submission.”
Ekpo had been deemed ineligible to pursue a refugee claim through Immigration and Refugees Canada, leaving her with one final avenue: a pre-removal risk assessment, commonly known as a PRRA. An immigration officer denied her application for a PRRA, prompting her to seek judicial review — and the urgent stay that would prevent her deportation before that review could take place.
Judge Finds “Serious Problem” in the Officer’s Decision
In her ruling, Judge Azmudeh identified a significant flaw in how the immigration officer handled Ekpo’s PRRA application. The judge noted that the officer appeared to accept Ekpo’s account as credible but ultimately rejected the claim on the grounds that there was insufficient corroborating evidence.
“The lack of corroborating evidence alone cannot constitute a negative credibility finding,” Azmudeh wrote. She emphasized that when an applicant swears that certain facts are true, a presumption of truthfulness applies unless there are reasonable grounds to doubt their account. The judge also cited United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guidelines, which state that there is no general obligation for refugee applicants to provide confirmatory documents, recognizing that people forced to flee their homes often have little or no opportunity to gather supporting paperwork.
Azmudeh found that the immigration officer had not made any independent adverse credibility determinations despite having interviewed Ekpo. Instead, the officer’s risk analysis was based solely on facts that had been rejected for lack of corroboration — a reasoning the judge described as “disguised credibility determinations disguised as conclusions about the sufficiency of evidence.”
Irreparable Harm Outweighs Government Interest
The judge concluded that deporting Ekpo before the judicial review could proceed would cause irreparable harm, specifically the loss of her right to a meaningful and effective remedy. Azmudeh noted that if the immigration officer’s error were left unexamined, Ekpo could be exposed to a serious possibility of gender-based persecution or personal harm amounting to irreparable damage.
Lawyers representing Immigration Minister Lena Diab had urged the court to reject Ekpo’s application, describing her argument as “unnecessarily long.” However, Azmudeh responded that “given the high risks involved in an urgent stay application, it is not in the interests of justice for this court to give more weight to form than substance.”
In balancing the interests at stake, the judge acknowledged that the only real inconvenience to the government would be a delay in Ekpo’s removal if her judicial review is ultimately dismissed. “Their removal will only be delayed and not completely thwarted,” Azmudeh wrote. On the other hand, she found that the potential harm to Ekpo — losing the right to a meaningful remedy — “outweighs the public interest in immediately enforcing the deportation order.”
What Happens Next
Ekpo’s stay of deportation remains in place while another federal judge considers whether to grant her application for a full judicial review of the immigration officer’s decision to deny her a PRRA. That review will determine whether the officer’s assessment was legally sound and whether Ekpo’s case warrants further consideration before any removal order is carried out.
