MB9-29985

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-29985 MB9-29986 / MB9-29987 / MB9-29988 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, Ontario Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 9, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Philippe Rabot Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Me Claudette Menghile Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative

XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentante désignée Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre

REASONS FOR DECISION

OVERVIEW [1] These are four appeals of members of the same family, namely, XXXX XXXX XXXX (the male appellant), his spouse, XXXX XXXX XXXX (the female appellant), and their two minor children, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The appellants are citizens of Nigeria, whereas their children are citizens of the United States, the country where they were born. The male appellant, who worked as a XXXX in Nigeria, was taken hostage in 2016 and released after his family paid a ransom. A few months later, he was injured during a burglary attempt at the hospital. He claimed that he had recently learned that he, personally, had been the target of these two events and that they had been organized by the son of a XXXX XXXX who XXXX XXXX while in the male appellant's XXXX. The son allegedly swore to avenge his XXXX XXXX if the male appellant ever returned to Nigeria. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the male appellant was not credible. The appellants criticize the RPD for attaching inordinate importance to minor contradictions in the evidence. [2] I am of the opinion that the alleged fear is not credible. Furthermore, the children did not cite any fear regarding their country of citizenship, the United States. The appeals are therefore dismissed.

BACKGROUND [3] From 2013 to 2017, the male appellant worked as a XXXX in a XXXX in Nigeria. The appellants travelled to the United States in 2015 because they wanted their first child to be born there. [4] In June 2016, the male appellant was taken hostage by a criminal gang while on his way to work. He was released after his family paid a ransom to his abductors. [5] Four months later, in October 2016, armed men burst into the hospital where the male appellant worked and demanded that those present hand over the money they had on their persons. The male appellant claimed that he did not have any, for which, he received a blow to the head, resulting in injuries. [6] That was when the appellants decided to leave Nigeria, since they no longer felt safe there. In XXXX 2017, they arrived in the United States. Their second child was born there six months later, in XXXX 2017. Then, in XXXX 2017, the female appellant and her children arrived in Canada. The male appellant joined them two months later, in XXXX 2018. [7] A number of months after the refugee protection claims were made, the male appellant allegedly learned from a XXXX colleague at the same XXXX where he had worked that he was being sought by the son of a XXXX XXXX. She XXXX XXXX in 2013 while at that XXXX XXXX Her son blamed the male appellant for XXXX XXXX, alleging that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He

allegedly informed the male appellant's colleague that he had been the one who had organized the male appellant's abduction in XXXX 2016. He also claimed responsibility for the XXXX 2016 burglary at the hospital where the male appellant worked and stated that the event had been directly targeted at him. Lastly, the son of XXXX XXXX in question stated that, if the male appellant ever returned to Nigeria, he would take revenge on him for the suffering that his mother's XXXX had caused his family. [8] As for the female appellant, she claimed that she would be stigmatized if she had to return to Nigeria because of her XXXX XXXX problems. In a letter, a XXXX who treated her in Canada1 explains that the female appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX and suffers XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXThe RPD concluded that the male appellant's account was not credible2 because the evidence contained numerous contradictions regarding the course of events. Furthermore, the RPD was of the opinion that the female appellant's medical condition was not such that she would face a serious possibility of persecution should she return to Nigeria. [9] In their appeal memorandum,3 the appellants submit that the RPD did not properly assess their credibility. They criticize the RPD for attaching too much importance to minor contradictions that, nevertheless, did not call into question the validity of their claims.

DETERMINATIVE ISSUES [10] I identified two determinative issues as follows: * Does the evidence establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the son of the patient who XXXX in 2013 would go after either of the appellants to XXXX his mother's XXXX? * Is there a serious possibility that, because of the female appellant's medical condition, she would be so stigmatized as to amount to persecution?

SCOPE OF THE APPEALS [11] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) reviews RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard of review, after carrying out its own analysis of the record. The exception to that rule concerns the RPD's findings in assessing the credibility of or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears, where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage. [12] In this case, I am of the opinion that there are no RPD findings with respect to which it enjoys a meaningful advantage. I therefore applied solely the correctness standard.

MERITS OF THE APPEALS The threat posed by a XXXX XXXX son [13] I agree that the RPD attached too much importance to minor contradictions in the appellants' evidence. However, after carrying out my own analysis of the evidence, I, too, come to the conclusion, but for different reasons, that the male appellant did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that his life would be threatened by the son of a XXXX XXXX XXXX at the XXXX seven years ago or that the son would inflict cruel and unusual treatment or punishment on him. I do not find at all credible the evidence regarding a conversation that this individual allegedly had with a former colleague of the male appellant in 2018. [14] I acknowledge that the presumption of truthfulness4 applies to the male appellant's testimony from the outset. Nevertheless, contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies in the evidence can overcome that presumption. The male appellant had initially stated in his refugee protection claim that he feared the criminal gang that had taken him hostage in 2016. Like the RPD, I am of the opinion that the male appellant did not provide a credible explanation as to why he would still have to fear that gang. [15] Shortly before the hearing, the male appellant amended his refugee protection claim form and noted a new fear, stemming from a telephone conversation he had allegedly had a year prior with a

former colleague. This was a significant amendment because it led to the identification of a prospective risk resulting partly from long-past events and partly from a more recent event that occurred well after the appellants had left Nigeria. [16] However, I consider the evidence relating to the telephone conversation that the son of a XXXX XXXX allegedly had with a former colleague of the male appellant to be riddled with inconsistencies that support the conclusion that the conversation never happened. This is the case with respect to the assertion that this individual claimed responsibility for both the male appellant's abduction in 2016 and the subsequent burglary, while insisting that they were acts of revenge. However, given the fact that the male appellant was released when his family paid a ransom, it does not at all seem like an act of revenge stemming from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX three years prior. The same is true of the burglary that occurred at the XXXX four months later and that targeted a number of individuals who were in the vicinity. [17] Furthermore, I agree with the RPD that there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the son XXXX XXXX XXXX in question would have shown an interest in taking revenge on the male appellant during the four years he lived in Nigeria afterwards. To imagine that he would suddenly emerge five years after the fact to

express his distress in view of the suffering his family had allegedly endured is not merely an implausibility. It is an inconsistency. The female appellant's risk of stigmatization owing to her medical condition [18] The appellants did not challenge, in their appeal memorandum, the conclusions set out by the RPD in paragraph 52 of its decision regarding the fear cited by the female appellant. For my part, I agree with these conclusions. The two minor children [19] The appellants did not cite any fear for their children with respect to a possible return to the United States, their country of nationality. Nor did they challenge the RPD's conclusion on the matter. I agree that the children's refugee protection claims have no merit.

CONCLUSION [20] The evidence does not support the conclusion that, on a balance of probabilities, the group that abducted the male appellant in June 2016 or the son of the XXXX XXXX XXXX in 2013 is likely to threaten the life of either of the appellants or subject them to cruel and unusual treatment should they return to Nigeria. [21] Nor does the evidence establish that the female appellant would face a serious possibility of persecution owing to her medical condition. [22] With respect to the two children, the evidence does not support the conclusion that they face any risk, should they return to the United States, that would lead to a determination that they were refugees or persons in need of protection. [23] The appeals are therefore dismissed. (signed) "Philippe Rabot" Philippe Rabot March 9, 2020 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 RPD-1, Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record, Exhibit C-3, page 279. 2 RPD-1, RPD record, RPD decision, pages 16 to 28. 3 P-2, Appeal record, pages 3 to 13. 4 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.) --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-29985 MB9-29986 / MB9-29987 / MB9-29988 RAD.25.02 (April 4, 2019) Disponible en français 7 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (April 4, 2019) Disponible en français