MB9-14181

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-14181/ MB9-14182/MB9-14183/MB9-14184/ MB9-14185 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 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision January 23, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Robert Cox Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Me Sandra Palmieri Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative

XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre

REASONS FOR DECISION

OVERVIEW [1] This is an appeal of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) of Canada rejecting the claims of a Nigerian man, XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Principal Appellant or XXXX) and his family which includes his wife, XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Associate Appellant or XXXX) and their three minor children XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor male appellant, hereinafter XXXX), XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor female appellants, hereinafter XXXX and XXXX) for the existence of Internal Flight Alternatives (IFA). [2] For reasons that the RAD will examine, if necessary, in the Analysis section, XXXX and XXXX argue that the RPD erred in its decision that they have viable IFAs in Abuja Port Harcourt, Nigeria and that the alleged agents of harm, the Kingsmen from XXXX home village, do not have the capacity to locate them anywhere in Nigeria. [3] Before the RAD, XXXX and XXXX are seeking to have the RPD decision set aside and replaced by a favourable decision to grant them refugee status, or, in the alternative, either return the matter to the RPD for redetermination or make all other orders judged appropriate.

DETERMINATIVE ISSUE AND DECISION [4] Like the RPD, the RAD finds that the determinative issue in this matter is an IFA in Port Harcourt or Abuja and, for the reasons outlined below, the Appeal is dismissed.

CONTEXT [5] Before the RPD, XXXX and XXXX (the "Appellants") filed claims for refugee protection based on a purported fear that if they return to Nigeria they will be subjected to physical punishment(s) or even death for their refusal to present their minor female children, XXXX and XXXX, to the Kingsmen of the XXXX XXXX village in Imo State for the traditional procedure of FGM. The Appellants identify the Kingsmen as XXXX "extended family". XXXX testified that he has not seen his "immediate family" (i.e. his mother and his siblings) in over nine years or since his marriage to XXXX but that his immediate family supports him and XXXX decision to refuse the FGM procedure for XXXX and XXXX. XXXX "immediate family" also supports this decision. [6] XXXX reports that when he married XXXX he moved and remained away from his village because he knew the Kingsmen wanted to subject her to community rituals. He reports that the Kingsmen do not acknowledge XXXX as his "true" wife unless she undergoes such rituals (which were not described). For these reasons, he alleges he moved to Benin, XXXX home city, where he remained with her and where they had their children. XXXX reports that no one in his family has seen his children or knew his home address in Benin but that he has communicated with his siblings and his mother by phone or on the internet. He further reports that the Kingsmen would

hold annual community meetings back in his hometown to which he was always invited but to which he refused to attend. He described that the Kingsmen somehow acquired (without his knowledge and by unknown means) his phone number and that they would call him annually to invite him to the annual meeting. In his narrative XXXX writes about having received a phone call on XXXX XXXX, 2017, from his elder brother who advised XXXX that XXXX and other community members had been the topic of discussion at the most recent meeting (i.e. date of the meeting unknown). XXXX reports that the day following his brother's phone call, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, five Kingsmen (two of whom XXXX testified to recognizing as men from his childhood community, but all of whom XXXX testified as to never having seen before) knocked at the Appellant's home in Benin. Both XXXX and XXXX report that they knew these men to be Kingsmen, and, so, they immediately gathered their 4 minor children, escaped out the back door of their home and ran to a nearby church. They allege that they stayed at the church for a night, before then taking a bus to XXXX to stay and live in hiding with XXXX aunt for a period of XXXX months (i.e. XXXX 2017 to XXXX 2017). [7] In XXXX 2017 XXXX and XXXX describe that they decided to leave XXXX and return to Benin because they believed it would be safe. On their way back from XXXX by bus,

the Appellants report that the bus was hijacked by terrorists who gathered all the babies on board the bus and killed them. Tragically, XXXX and XXXX report that their then XXXX-month-old son, XXXX XXXX XXXX (hereinafter XXXX), was one of these victims. They report that, following the hijacking and the demise of XXXX, another car driving by on its way to Benin picked up the family (including the body of XXXX) and drove them on to Benin where the family moved into a new apartment/house owned by XXXX father. [8] The Appellants report moving into and living in an apartment owned and provided by XXXX father (the same apartment in which XXXX purportedly lived prior to getting married to XXXX) located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, on first east circular road in Benin. The Appellants report that they remained in this home from the time of their return in XXXX 2017 through to their departure from Nigeria for the United States of America (U.S.A.) in XXXX 2018. During this XXXX-month period, they do not report any further harassment or incidents involving the Kingsmen or any other agent of harm. [8] The RPD was not convinced that the Appellants presented a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground, that the Kingsmen have the capacity to seek out the Appellants in Nigeria or, more specifically, in the proposed IFAs of Abuja or Port Harcourt. The RPD found

that the determinative issue was the availability of an IFA, correctly analyzed the Appellants' claim using the IRB RAD decision numbered TB7-198511 and correctly assessed the viability of the IFAs in accordance with the Federal Court jurisprudence2 and the necessary two-prong test established by said jurisprudence (the Rasaratnam test). [9] In rendering its decision, the RAD reviewed and reconsidered the IRB RAD decision numbered TB7-19851,3 the latter of which has been, and continues to be, identified by the IRB as a Jurisprudential Guide for Nigerian cases (hereinafter referred to as the Nigerian JG) and the IRB Chairman's Guideline #4 on gender related persecution (hereinafter referred to as Guideline #4).

ROLE OF THE RAD [10] Unless otherwise specifically stated below, the RAD has applied a correctness standard in its review of the RPD decision that is the subject of this Appeal.

ANALYSIS [11] The RAD conducted an independent review and assessment of the Appellant's record, listened to the recording of the RPD hearing and considered all of the evidence and arguments placed before it. For the reasons provided below, the RAD agrees with the RPD's decision concerning the existence of viable IFAs for the Appellants in Port Harcourt or Abuja. NIGERIAN JG AND GUIDELINE #4 [12] The Appellants did not contest the RPD's correct use of the Nigerian JG which, as the RAD agrees, is a useful guide in the present file given its sufficient similarity with the facts presented by the Appellants and its general applicability to Nigerians seeking refuge based on fears arising from non-State Actors. Although the facts herein do simply involve a s ingle woman but an entire family, the RAD finds that the RPD correctly considered the Nigerian JG and did not strictly rely on it in any manner that would analogously amount to a stare decisis or obligatory application. The RAD does, however, recognize that the RPD decision did not specifically note its consideration of Guideline #4; nevertheless, because the Nigerian JG references Guideline #4 and because the RPD referenced its consideration of the Nigerian JG, the RPD's neglect to specifically reference the Guideline #4 is not, in the opinion of the RAD, fatal to its decision. IFA [13] The Appellants, through their experienced

legal counsel, question whether the RPD appropriately applied the Rasaratnam test to determine the viability of the IFAs in Abuja and Port Harcourt. They contend that the RPD failed to consider the objective evidence which confirms that there is no "safe haven" anywhere in Nigeria for individuals in the same situation as the Appellants and that the RPD failed to establish "why" it determined Abuja and Port Harcourt as the proposed IFAs. Respectfully, the RAD refutes these assertions and finds that the RPD correctly assessed the existence of viable and reasonable IFAs for the Appellants. First Prong Analysis [14] At the outset of the RPD meeting, the RPD Member correctly advised the Appellants that she would be examining the issue of an IFA.4 The RAD notes that the RPD did not render any ruling on the Appellants' credibility (other than to acknowledge their identities) or on the availability, or not, of any State Protection for the Appellants, and, for this reason, the RAD's assessment will be limited to the existence of IFAs. [15] As stated above, the RPD decided that the Appellants have viable IFAs in Abuja and Port Harcourt based on the Kigsmen's incapacity to seek them out in either region and because based on the socio-economic and cultural make-up of each region, the RPD decided that it would not be unreasonable for the Appellants to relocate to either region. [16] The

Appellants contend that the RPD failed to establish "why" it determined Abuja and Port Harcourt as IFAs.5 The RPD identified Abuja and Port Harcourt as IFAs for the Appellants, explained that it had chosen these cities based on the Nigerian JG and because of their multiethnic, multilinguistic and religiously diverse make-up before then proceeding to question each of the Appellants about their thoughts about each of these cities and the ability, or not, of the Kingsmen to seek out the Appellants in each location.6 To this questioning, the Appellants provided no other answers than to state that they were frightened and that the Kingsmen would be able to locate them through "spiritual" communication and that "the Gods will inform them (i.e. the Kingsmen)"7 of the Appellants' whereabouts. The RPD was not satisfied with the Appellants explanations that the Kingsmen would tirelessly continue to pursue them and find them in either of the IFAs because the Kingsmen could use spiritual means since the Appellants had provoked the anger of the gods by refusing to partake in the community rituals. The RPD found that the Appellants' testimony was not based on any objective evidence. [17] The RAD respectfully refutes the Appellants assertions that the RPD erred in its first prong assessment or that the RPD did not explain its choice of Abuja or Port Harcourt as potential IFAs and it agrees

with the RPD's decision that the Appellants testimony about any forward-looking fear of the Kingsmen is, at best, speculative and not based on any objective evidence. [18] The jurisprudential criteria for the determination of an IFA is well established and is constant. Mr. Justice Kelen listed the criteria in his 2008 Federal Court decision in Farias.8 Included in these criteria was the need to give notice about the intention to consider IFA9 as a determinative issue during an RPD hearing and to identify specific IFA locations within the claimants' country of origin. The listed criteria also provide that decision-makers must complete the two-prong Rasaratnam test and that, once the issue of IFA is raised, the burden then falls to the claimant (i.e. the Appellants) to demonstrate that the IFA is not safe or that it is unreasonable. The RAD finds that the RPD correctly raised IFA as the determinative issue, specifically identified the locations of the proposed IFAs and then explained its reasoning for its choice of IFAs. The RAD therefore refutes the Appellants' arguments that the RPD did not explain "why" it chose Abuja and Port Harcourt as IFAs. Moreover, the RAD also agrees with the RPD and finds that the Appellants did not provide any objective documentary or testimonial evidence to substantiate their alleged forward-looking fear(s) of the Kingsmen or, for that matter, of the

latter's capacity or continued motivation or interest to seek out the Appellants in the proposed IFAs. The RAD, too, is not satisfied with the Appellants' testimony or explanations that the Kingsmen would be able to locate them in Abuja or Port Harcourt using spiritual means. [19] In their memorandum of appeal the Appellants allege that the RPD did not correctly consider or assess the objective evidence from the Nigerian National Documentation Package (NDP) and in so doing, the RPD committed a fatal error during its first prong analysis of the dangers the Appellants could face once relocated to Abuja or Port Harcourt. To this end, and in their response to the RPD's first prong analysis, the Appellants argue and cite geographical statistics concerning FGM, raise arguments about the volatility of armed conflicts between criminal groups and security forces, describe conflicts between religious sects and tribes and express the difficulties non-indigenes suffer upon relocation. The Appellants also cite NDP documents relating to the issue of confidentiality, or the lack thereof, within the Nigerian banking system. The Appellants cite this documentation in an attempt to demonstrate that the Kingsmen can somehow use this system to locate the whereabouts of the Appellants anywhere in Nigeria. Finally, the Appellants assert that the RPD "imposed" unreasonable standards of proof when

considering the Appellants testimony/explanation (or lack thereof) about (i) how the Kingsmen allegedly found the Appellants in Benin; or (ii) the "spiritual means" by which they could possibly find them upon their relocation to the IFAs. The RAD respectfully refutes each of these arguments for the reasons that follow. Objective NDP Documentation-Statistics [20] The RPD announced that it had considered and reviewed the Nigerian JG. The Nigerian JG, in and of itself, contains a thorough analysis of the objective NDP evidence relating to the traditional rituals of FGM and the potential for any negative consequences that could befall claimants who have refused to partake in such rituals. The Nigerian JG is a guide and the IRB policy relating to the use of JGs stipulates that decision makers are asked to use and consider such guides while taking into consideration the personal circumstances of the individual claimants. The Nigerian JG contains similar statistical information concerning the imposition of FGM procedures and the consequences that may, or may not, befall individuals who refuse such procedures either for themselves or their children. However, notwithstanding the RPD's review, the RAD independently reviewed the April 30, 2019, NDP and the documents cited by the Appellants in their memorandum of Appeal. For example, the RAD notes that the Appellants cited paragraphs 2.3.3

and 2.3.4 of the February 2017 Version 1.0 edition of Document 1.22 of the April 30, 2017, NDP10 but neglected to cite paragraph 2.3.8 of the same document wherein in section b, entitled: "Parents who resist/oppose FGM for their minor children," it specifically stipulates: A person who is the parent of a minor child who is opposed to them undergoing FGM within communities that practice it, face societal discrimination and ostracism for going against cultural or family traditions. Decision makers need to consider each case on its facts. However, in general, this treatment is unlikely to reach the threshold to constitute persecution or serious harm. (Italics and underlining added.) The RAD further notes that this same document was modified in August 2019 and that the aforementioned paragraph 2.3.8 now appears as paragraph 2.4.16 under section b and that the said paragraph has been modified to now read as follows: A person who is the parent of a minor child who is opposed to them undergoing FGM within communities that practice it, face societal discrimination, blackmailing, denial of intercultural benefits and ostracism for going against cultural or family traditions. Decision makers need to consider each case on its facts. However, in general, this treatment is unlikely by virtue of its nature and repetition to reach the high threshold to constitute persecution or serious harm.

The act of enforced FGM on a child, where the parents are opposed to the act, could result in the child's parents being subject to persecution or serious harm. (Italics and underlining added.) Based on its review of the objective NDP evidence, its consideration of the Appellants allegations and its re-examination of the RPD decision, the RAD finds, on balance of probabilities, that (i) contrary to the Appellants allegations, the objective NDP evidence demonstrates that the Appellants would not be persecuted or experience serious harm if relocated to the proposed IFAs; (ii) the Appellants did not and could not provide sufficient objective evidence that any FGM procedure would be "enforced" upon their minor children; and (iii) the RPD considered the objective evidence and delved into even further depth when it questioned each of the Appellants about their personal circumstances; the whole as is suggested by the Nigerian JG and the IRB. Personal Circumstances and Standard of Proof [21] In this matter, the RPD thoroughly reviewed and questioned both XXXX and XXXX about their personal circumstances and their personal fears. Each of the Appellants responded to the RPD's questions about their personal fears of the imposition of the FGM rituals upon their minor daughters and the support that both XXXX and XXXX have from their "immediate" families. When questioned by the RPD during its

first prong analysis about how, if at all, the Kingsmen allegedly located the Appellants in Benin, neither XXXX nor XXXX could explain how. Indeed, XXXX even testified that she did not, could not and would not have been able to recognize the Kingsmen that allegedly knocked at their Benin door on XXXX XXXX, 2017, because, as she so testified, she never went to XXXX home village, nor did she ever meet or participate in any of the community rituals of XXXX home village. Such testimony then begs the question as to why she would have felt the need to "immediately" escape from her own home in Benin when these 5 men knocked at her home door? As for XXXX, he testified that he had recognized two of the five men when they knocked at his door despite the fact that he also testified to not having ever returned to his home village following his marriage to XXXX-a period which extended greater than nine years. He then testified, and XXXX concurred, that they "immediately" gathered their four young children (one of whom was, at that time, just over a year old and the other three ranged in ages between 4 and 7) and that they all escaped undetected out the back door of their home to a nearby church. This "escape", they explained, was "immediate" and was premised on a non-menacing or non-urgent phone call from XXXX elder brother on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, in which XXXX elder brother simply advised

XXXX that he and other families from their home village had been the topic of conversation at a recent meeting in their village (i.e. date of the meeting unknown). When asked how the Kingsmen knew where the Appellants lived in Benin, how they acquired XXXX telephone number and whether XXXX brother would have provided the Kingsmen with such information; XXXX testified that he believed the Kingsmen located the Appellants in Benin by spiritual means through the gods and that "No, my brother would have never provided such information". [22] Like the RPD, the RAD is not satisfied with these explanations. The phone call from XXXX brother was never described as a phone call in which the Appellants were being "warned" of some imminent threat to their safety. The phone call was described as being one in which the Appellants were simply advised that they and other families from XXXX village had been the topic of a discussion. [23] As for the Appellants having to and being able to "immediately" gather four young children and escape out the back door of their home undetected for reasons relating to a simple knock at their front door is an explanation of fear and logic with which the RAD is not satisfied. The Appellants provided no evidence of any threats or of any threatening behaviour on the part of the people who allegedly knocked at their front door that would lead the RAD to conclude

that their safety or the safety of their four children were, at any time or for any reason, in any danger at that moment. [24] The RAD takes the opportunity here to reiterate that neither it nor the RPD "impose" standards of proof when completing the two-prong analysis of IFAs; that is once the determinative issue of IFA is raised, the burden of proof falls to the claimants (i.e. the Appellants) to demonstrate that the proposed IFA(s) are not safe or reasonable, and this requirement is well founded in law, regardless of the claimants (i.e. the Appellants) credibility. In this matter, the RAD finds that the RPD did not "impose" any standard of proof that was "too rigorous or too harsh", but instead found, as does the RAD, that the explanations and testimony provided by the Appellants were unsatisfactory and were not substantiated by any sufficiently objective evidence. Objective NDP Documentation-Conflicts [25] The Appellants allege that the RPD failed to consider the armed conflicts between criminal groups and the security forces, conflicts between religious factions and the difficulties faced by non-indigenes when they relocate. With respect, the RAD notes that the latter indigenous argument relates to the second-prong examination of an IFA and it will address this matter during its independent second-prong analysis below. As for the Appellants arguments concerning conflicts,

the RAD refutes the Appellants assertions that such conflicts relate specifically to the Appellants claim. After having been repeatedly asked by the RPD about what fears the Appellants have, each of the Appellants repeatedly answered that their fears were of the Kingsmen and of the latter's alleged demands to submit the minor female children for FGM. The RAD acknowledges the Appellants' tragic loss of XXXX and sympathizes with the Appellants for the loss of their child. The RAD must reiterate, however, that the Appellants did not demonstrate that they were the specific targets or that they were specifically targeted by the hijackers. The tragedy that befell the Appellants (and it is a devastating and demoralizing story) was described and reported by the Appellants to be a purely random act. The Appellants never raised or testified to having any fears of any criminal groups or from any religious sects, nor did they provide any evidence of any such fears. The Appellants legal counsel did attempt to raise the issue of religious persecution based on the Appellants' disclosed Christian faith; however, when the RPD Member repeated her questions about the Appellants' fears, their responses continuously returned to their described fears of the Kingsmen. The Appellants did not provide any evidence that they are being sought by any criminal group or any religious sect, nor did they

provide any evidence that any such group(s) has any interest or motivation to seek them out in the proposed IFA(s). As such, the RAD finds that the Appellants would not be any more subjected to any of the aforementioned conflicts than is the average Nigerian who is not party to such conflicts and who is living in Abuja or Port Harcourt. Objective NDP Documentation-Confidentiality of the Nigerian Banking System [26] Setting aside the fact that the Appellants never raised or alleged that the Kingsmen had the means, the sophistication or the network to use or to access the Nigerian banking system to acquire information on the whereabouts of the Appellants, the RAD undertook a thorough review of Document 1.1411 of the April 30, 2017, NDP. Document 1.14 provides insufficient evidence, if any, that the Kingsmen from a small community can access, or that they have the interest or motivation to access, personal information collected from individuals in relation to SIM cards or bank accounts. Indeed, Document 1.14 provides just the opposite of the arguments advanced by the Appellants. It provides for example that the Nigerian Chief of Army staff is concerned with "the proliferation of unregistered SIM cards", "information on the access of third parties to SIM card and bank account information could not be found....", that "the information of mobile telephone subscribers registered in

the central database can only be provided to security agencies and that the request must be provided in writing" and that "mobile telephone service providers. On the balance of probabilities, therefore, the RAD finds that there is insufficient evidence, if any, from the objective NDP evidence that the Kingsmen had, or have any interest or motivation, to access, or for that matter to use, the Nigerian SIM card or banking system to find or to continue to seek out the Appellants either in the IFAs or anywhere in Nigeria. [27] For all these reasons, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellants have not established that the Kingsmen have the capacity, motivation or interest to seek out the Appellants whereabouts once they are relocated to Abuja or Port Harcourt. Second Prong Analysis [28] The RPD correctly examined the reasonableness of the IFAs based on the following factors: language, education, employment, accommodation and religion. The Appellants argued that the RPD, contrary to the jurisprudence, was not sensitive to the Appellants' age, gender, level of education, ethnicity, religion, financial circumstances, ability to secure a livelihood or access to a support network, and, as was alluded to in paragraph 18 above, the Appellants being non-indigenes to either Abuja or Port Harcourt. The Appellants assert that the RPD failed to properly consider the adduced evidence regarding reasonableness of relocation to the proposed IFAs. The RAD, as per the Rasaratnam test and after examining the objective documentary evidence from the Nigerian NDP referenced by the RPD and the Appellants, conducted its own independent analysis to ascertain the reasonableness of the IFAs for the Appellants taking into consideration their personal circumstances.

ABUJA [29] Document 1.4 of the Nigerian NDP provides that Abuja is the Capital of Nigeria situated in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) with an estimated population of approximately 2,919 million inhabitants and wherein English, the official language of Nigeria, is the common language. The documentation provides that there is a relatively equal religious mix between Nigerians of the Christian and Muslim faiths and there is access to education and healthcare (albeit expensive healthcare but such a situation would be no different for the Appellants than any other Nigerian living in Abuja). According to Document 1.23 of the NDP Abuja is the least difficult place to start a business ranking first out of Nigeria's 36 States and is the second-lowest region for unemployment, ranking slightly behind Lagos. Abuja is Nigeria's second fastest growing city behind Lagos yet, according to document 1.23 of the NDP, the 600,000 deficits in houses does not propel the owners of houses to sell or to rent their properties at any price with the result being vacancy in housing. According to 1.17 of the most recent Nigerian NDP, Abuja is one two regions in Nigeria which does not establish or place non-indigene limitations or quotas on governing policies. With respect to FGM Document 5.16 provides that Abuja, being the FCT, provides the most secure State Protection against FGM and enforces the

Violence Against Persons Prohibitions (VAPP) act. [30] The evidence provided by the Appellants, as also stated by the, RPD, demonstrates that Appellants have a higher than average education within Nigeria, that XXXX has more than seven years work experience (4 of which were spent as a XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) and that XXXX, while having limited work experience, has 16 years of education. XXXX is in his early 40s and XXXX in her mid to late 30s and there is no evidence which demonstrates that either suffer from any illness or in poor health. As such, the evidence demonstrates that both XXXX and XXXX are employable and can seek and acquire employment in Abuja. The evidence demonstrates that accommodations in Abuja are not scarce, that there is a vacancy and, while they may experience a period of some readjustment, the Appellants can and would acquire housing. The Minor Appellants are all of primary school age and will have access to education and all of the appellants will have access to proper healthcare. The Appellants can freely and securely practice their Christian faith within Abuja and they can, if at all needed, seek appropriate protection from authorities against any perceived harm. Nigerians are free to move throughout Nigeria and, as per the Appellants testimony, Abuja is less than XXXX hours travel time from XXXX where the Appellants stayed with XXXX aunt for a period of XXXX months without incident. As such, the Appellants could certainly visit and would not be without the ability to seek assistance from family. Finally, the Appellants non-indigenous status to the region of Abuja is not a factor within Abuja and while the Appellants relocation to Abuja may, at first, be difficult, it would not be impossible or unreasonable.

PORT HARCOURT [31] The recent NDP evidence demonstrates that Port Harcourt ranks amongst the largest cities in Nigeria and is similar in population to Abuja. Port Harcourt ranks amongst the highest cities within Nigeria for access to healthcare and, more particularly with teaching hospitals specializing, for example, in the medical field of gynecology. Being a port city, Port Harcourt ranks high in the provision of security. The RAD notes that neither the most recent NDP nor the NDP referenced by the Appellants and the RPD contains any glaring negative reports or documentation which demonstrate that Port Harcourt ranks much lower than Abuja in terms of employment, education or religious freedom. Nor were any such reports alleged by the Appellants in their memorandum of Appeal. The Appellants did assert that XXXX was found by the Kingsmen in other parts of Nigeria (although there is insufficient objective evidence to demonstrate this assertion) and that they could, therefore, find him again in Port Harcourt. However, the RAD has already concluded from its first prong analysis that there is insufficient objective evidence to demonstrate that the Kingsmen are motivated or interested in seeking XXXX whereabouts in the IFAs or throughout Nigeria. [32] The RAD recognises that the issues of non-indigenous and access to a family network are not as favourable to the Appellants as they

would be in Abuja but, once again, they do not reach the threshold of being unreasonable. The RAD reiterates that an IFA must be realistic and attainable and that the Appellants cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or undergo hardship in travelling and staying there. The Federal Court has set a high threshold for the test of unreasonableness; for an IFA to be considered unreasonable it must be demonstrated with concrete evidence that the individual's security and life would be in danger within the proposed IFA. In this case, the RAD finds that the Appellants' non-indigenous status to Port Harcourt or their more difficult accessibility to a family network while in Port Harcourt would not create undue hardship or place their security or lives in great danger. [33] For both Abuja and Port Harcourt, the Appellants assert that the RPD did not consider the hardship that a woman has in relocating throughout Nigeria. To this end, the Appellants cited documentation demonstrating the difficulties faced by women upon relocation from one region of Nigeria to another. With respect, the documentation refers to women who are at the head of their households, single, widowed, elderly or divorced women. In this matter, XXXX is married to XXXX and there is no evidence before the RAD that the marriage is in jeopardy, that XXXX intends on leaving XXXX, that there is any domestic

violence or that XXXX would discontinue living with and be the husband that he currently is to XXXX or that he would discontinue being the father that he currently is to their four children (including XXXX who is NOT a subject of this Appeal and who was born in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018). As such, there is no evidence before the RAD that XXXX falls within the situation asserted by the Appellants vis-à-vis relocation of women throughout Nigeria. [34] For all these reasons, and given all the circumstances, including circumstances personal and particular to the Appellants, the RAD finds that it would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh for the Appellants to relocate to Abuja or Port Harcourt and that, following an independent two prong examination, the Appellants do have viable IFAs in Abuja or Port Harcourt.

DETERMINATION [35] The RAD finds that the Appellants have not satisfied their requirements to establish that, on a balance of probabilities, they face the serious possibility of persecution, or, on a balance of probabilities, a personal risk to their life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture and that they are not "Convention Refugees" pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA nor persons in need of protection pursuant to subsection 97 (1) of the IRPA since, as was correctly determined by the RPD, a viable IFA exists in Nigeria. [36] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD, the whole pursuant to paragraph 111 (1) (a) of the IRPA. (Signed) Robert Cox Me Robert Cox January 23, 2020 Date RC/tm 1 IRB RAD case identified as TB7-19851 (determined to be a Jurisprudential Guide by the Chairperson of the IRB of Canada). 2 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 FC 706 (FCA) 3 IRB RAD case identified as TB7-19851 (determined to be a Jurisprudential Guide by the Chairperson of the IRB of Canada). 4 RPD Hearing Minute 00:24:30 5 See paragraph 18 of the Memorandum of Appeal. 6 Ibid: Minute 01:39:54 to 01:47:40 7 Ibid 8 Farias v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2008] FC 1035 9 The jurisprudence is such that this notice can be provided at or during the RPD hearing. See Raganathan v.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2003] FC 1367 10 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/595458/CPIN_-_NGA_-_FGM_-_v_1_0.pdf 11 Document RIR NGA 106245. E-Nigeria: requirements and procedures to obtain a Subscriber Identity Mobile (SIM) card and to open a bank account; extent to which SIM card and banking information is available to third parties, including authorities and elected politicians. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9- 14,181/ MB9-14182/MB914183/MB9-14184/MB9-14185 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 2 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 04, 2019) Disponible en français