MC0-08773

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC0-08773 MC0-08774 / MC0-08775 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et decision Persons who are the subject of the appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision June 28, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Daphnée Ouellet Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Isaac Owusu-Sechere 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] The Principal Appellant (PA), XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a 56-year-old man of Christian faith, hailing from Lagos, Nigeria. He claims to be a descendant from a family of XXXX XXXX from XXXX village, XXXX district, Isiala Ngwu North in Abia State. He fears his uncle, XXXX, and older sister, XXXX, who seek to forcibly recruit him to the position of XXXX XXXX of their ancestral village and conduct human sacrifice rituals on the PA's only son as part of his initiation. [2] The PA is accompanied on his application by his spouse and son: XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (Associate Appellants). They are all citizens of Nigeria. * Impugned Refugee Protection Division (RPD) Decision [3] The RPD found that the Appellants had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Abuja or Benin City, if they returned to Nigeria. More specifically, it found that the Appellants had not met their burden of proving that the PA's family had the means to find them in the IFA locations. It also concluded that the proposed IFA were reasonable, and that it would not be unduly harsh for the Appellants to relocate, having considered their particular circumstances.1 * Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) Decision to Reopen [4] On September 21, 2020, the RAD dismissed the Appellants' appeal for lack of perfection. On October 28, 2020, a motion to reopen their appeal was filed arguing that they had communication

issues with the RAD registry and had conveyed their intention to perfect their appeal by filing a request for an extension of time. Given this, and that it was considered a breach of natural justice to deprive them of the right to appeal the RPD decision before RAD, their motion to reopen was allowed on December 24, 2020. * Grounds for Appeal [5] The RPD conclusions on IFA are contested by the Appellants who submitted an affidavit in lieu of a memorandum to present their arguments on appeal.2 The main arguments can be summarized as follows: -The PA's family has the means to track them down due to the mobility of people in his family as well as cultural traits and customs which would make him easier to identify; -The Appellants omitted to list everywhere that they had fled to in their port of entry forms which would corroborate their claims that the PA's family also has the motivation to find them; -The impact of their indigeneship was not taken into account to assess the reasonableness of relocating; -The PA's mental health concerns and psychological assessment were not considered; -New Evidence has emerged regarding the PA's son mental health concerns. * Determinative Issue [6] The determinative issue in this appeal relates to the existence of an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Abuja.

DETERMINATION [7] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection given the existence of a viable IFA in Abuja. The new evidence presented on appeal does not change this finding. I have not re-examined the issue of IFA to Benin City on appeal given that a viable IFA in Abuja exists.

NEW EVIDENCE AND ORAL HEARING [8] The RPD hearing was on December 20, 2019, and the impugned RPD decision is dated January 28, 2020. The Appellants are seeking (i) to admit one item3 as new evidence with their appeal but (ii) did not request that the RAD hold an oral hearing, and I consider that this is not required. i. Admissibility: Exhibit A is admissible [9] The item submitted as new evidence is: Exhibit A - Medical Note for XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - August 28, 2020. [10] As both the medical note and the reported facts therein4 arose after the RPD decision in accordance with 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),5 I must also decide if the evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.6 [11] Regarding newness, the medical note is able to prove "an event that occurred or a circumstance that arose after the hearing in the RPD"7, namely, the PA's son's mental health condition which arose after, and as a result of, the RPD hearing, according to the information provided by him in his affidavit.8 It states that the PA's son was admitted to the XXXX Emergency Department on XXXX XXXX, 2020, and subsequently diagnosed with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [12] Moreover, the medical note appears credible on its face as it was written on XXXX letterhead and bears the signature of the psychiatrist who

treated the PA's son. I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the document. I will discuss further its contents below (see Analysis - ii.). [13] Finally, the medical note is relevant as the PA's son's mental health condition is relevant to the assessment of viability of any proposed IFA. [14] For all these reasons, I find Exhibit A admissible. ii. No RAD hearing is required [15] The Appellants did not request that I hold an oral hearing and I consider that it is not required. [16] It is well established that a hearing is not granted simply because new evidence is admitted before the RAD. Rather, the new evidence must satisfy the criteria at subsection 110(6) of IRPA before a hearing may be held.9 [17] Under 110(6) of IRPA, I may hold an oral hearing if the new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellants, it is central to the claim and it would justify allowing or rejecting the claim. All three criteria need to be fulfilled. [18] In the present case, I will not hold an oral hearing as the evidence presented does not raise a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellants. As such, I find that the new evidence which was accepted here does not meet the legal conditions for a RAD hearing. I am able to reach a decision without an oral hearing pursuant to subsection 110(3) of IRPA.

SCOPE OF APPEAL [19] The role of the RAD is to intervene when the RPD is wrong in law, in fact, or in fact and law. I reviewed the decision of the RPD by applying the correctness standard.10 I conducted an independent review of the evidence, including the audio recording of the RPD hearing and the Appellant's record.

ANALYSIS [20] On my own assessment, I find that the RPD did not err in finding that the Appellants have a viable IFA in Abuja, although I find it should have provided explicit findings on the psychological evidence given its centrality in determining the reasonableness of any proposed IFA (i). Additionally, I find that the new evidence provided by the Appellants does not affect this finding (ii). I conclude that the Appellants have not met their burden of showing that they face a serious possibility of being persecuted in Abuja and that it would be unreasonable or unduly harsh for them to relocate there in their particular circumstances. [21] The Associate Appellants have based their claims entirely on the facts presented by the PA; the following analysis applies equally to them. i. The RPD Did Not Err by Concluding that a Viable IFA Exists in Abuja [22] The test for assessing an IFA consists of two parts:11 (1) The Board must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists and/or the claimant would not be personally subjected to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA. (2) Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must

be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for him to seek refuge there.12 The threshold is high for the unreasonableness test.13 [23] Both prongs must be satisfied to find that the Appellants have a viable IFA. a) First prong: the Appellants have not established a serious possibility of persecution in Abuja [24] As part of the analysis of the first prong, the Appellants were required to show that the PA's family would have the means to find them in any of the proposed IFA locations. I find that they have not established this through their testimony or supporting evidence presented. 1- Means [25] With respect to the first part of the IFA test, the RPD determined that there was not a serious possibility of persecution in Abuja because the PA's family would not have the means to seek them out. I agree. [26] More specifically, when questioned by the RPD, the PA gave vague responses alleging that his uncle had "people in Abuja"14 and "all over the place".15 When asked to explain further, he stated that his uncle had friends there and that those friends could run into the PA and call his uncle. The RPD found this explanation speculative, and I agree. [27] On appeal, they have raised similar, albeit more detailed, arguments on this. They argue that the PA's family could track him down as a function of mobility of

people in his family who move from place to place, and that in Nigeria people can easily identify where someone comes from by the way they dress, and the food they like to eat, amongst other things. He argues that, despite a population of over 200 million, it is not too difficult for individuals from the same clan or family to run into each other and that every town or city has a place where clans congregate and live, as non indigenes, which is a sure way to track down someone. The Appellants also argue that the PA could be recognized, given that he is from a line of XXXX XXXX. [28] I do not find these arguments persuasive, and I consider that they remain very much in the realm of speculation. [29] The Appellants are not from a small village but from Lagos, where they were residing prior to their flight. From the evidence, there is no reason to believe that they would stand out in a big city like Abuja, where non-indigenes are demographically dominant according to documentary evidence.16 Igbos, such as the PA, represent 18% of the total population in Nigeria.17 Yoruba, such as his spouse, represent over 15%.18 Therefore, the statistical probability of him running into the friends of his uncle in a large city like Abuja and that they would recognize him based on his ethnicity is extremely low, if not improbable, just based on sheer numbers. [30] The PA has testified that he was

well-to-do in Nigeria given his education and previous job, and nothing in the evidence suggests that he would not be able to afford housing in a safe area. The Appellants have not presented evidence to support the assertion that they would be forced to live with, or rely on, other members of the Igbo community nor that this would make it possible for the PA's family to track them down. [31] The onus is on the Appellants to show that the PA's family would have the means to find them. They have not met their burden here. A bald assertion or claims that are not supported by any objective basis are not sufficient to meet the required standard of proof. The Federal Court has recognized in such cases that the presumption of truth does not extend to the Appellants' assertions regarding their persecutors being linked with a bigger network, in the absence of any objective basis.19 2- Motivation [32] The RPD made credibility findings which were related to the fact that the PA's family would not have the motivation to find them in another city given that they had all lived in Lagos previously, had interacted with each other, and that the Appellants had not tried to hide for a prolonged period between 2011 and 2017 while they were purportedly in conflict.20 The Appellants have contested these findings on appeal, arguing only that the PA's family has the motivation to find them and that

they had unfortunately omitted to include the various places they had fled to during this period from their Basis of Claim forms (BOC). [33] As confirmed by the Federal Court, it is open to the panel to gauge credibility and to draw negative inferences about the disparities between statements in the original BOC, in the POE interview notes, in the amended narratives and in the viva voce testimony for which no satisfactory, plausible or credible explanation have been provided in the circumstances.21 It is also well-established that an important factor in assessing credibility is internal consistency and consistency with previous statements.22 [34] The Appellants have not provided additional information or evidence on appeal of having relocated between 2011 and 2017. They indicated the same address in Lagos during this entire period in their point of entry forms, and they also detail in their amended narrative that they would get together with the PA's family, including at their wedding, and were disappointed when his family members did not come to the hospital for the birth of their son.23 When confronted with this at hearing, the Appellants did not deny these facts.24 Thus, while the Appellants should not be required to hide from family members in the proposed IFA25, I agree with the RPD that the Appellants have not credibly established that there is a serious possibility that

their family members would have the motivation to seek them out in Abuja given that they did not do so for a prolonged period of time when they all lived in Lagos and interacted with each other at family gatherings. b) Second Prong: relocation to Abuja is not unreasonable or unduly harsh in the Appellants' particular circumstances [35] As mentioned above, the threshold is high for the unreasonableness test.26 According to the Federal Court of Appeal: "It requires nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area. In addition, it requires actual and concrete evidence of such conditions."27 It also stressed the importance of not lowering this threshold.28 [36] On appeal, the Appellants argue that (1) the RPD did not consider the role of indigeneship in obtaining employment, housing and social services in a potential IFA location, and also referred to documentary evidence regarding attacks on foreigners29 arguing that non-indigenes are considered foreigners where they live. They further argue that (2) the RPD did not consider his psychological problems, namely XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. 1-Indigeneship [37] I cannot agree with the Appellants that the RPD erred by not considering indigeneship in its reasons when addressing the reasonableness of the proposed IFAs, given that they had

not mentioned it during hearing. Once the RPD had raised the issue of possible IFAs, the onus was on the Appellants to show that the proposed IFAs were not viable.30 [38] On appeal, I have considered the Appellants' arguments regarding the role of indigeneship in obtaining employment, housing and social services in Abuja, as well as the documentary evidence regarding attacks on foreigners31 on which they rely. I have reviewed all relevant documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) as regards the problems faced by non-indigenes in the large cities of Nigeria, including the document specifically referenced by the Appellants.32 [39] On my own assessment, I find that the issue of indigeneship would not significantly impede the Appellants' relocation to Abuja. According to the documentary evidence on which they have relied, Abuja has a diverse population, including a huge concentration of the urban working class and jobseekers, and attracts people from all over Nigeria.33 It also specifies that: Being the national capital, the arguments for indigeneship are limited to the city's peripheries, where the autochthonous inhabitants (the Gbagyi) contend with the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA). Most non-indigenes within Abuja are protected by the authority of the FCDA and by the convenience of the Land Use Act of 1978 (modified in 2004), which rests the

federal capital in the hands of the federal government, which gives more room for the practice and appreciation of federal character.34 [40] Similar information on indigeneship in Abuja is available in other documents in the NDP such as the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) report which specifically mentions that official discrimination when attempting to access government services including university places or employment in the civil sector do not apply in the larger urban centres such as Abuja.35 It also mentions that federal policies are intended to preserve "federal character" to prevent over- or under-representation by any ethnic group in the public service or at universities.36 [41] As noted previously, the PA is highly educated and worked for a large company in Nigeria according to his own account, which gives him a higher than most chance of obtaining employment and securing a livelihood for his family. This would also facilitate the Appellants' ability to find housing as well as other social services. [42] Given all this, I find that the Appellants would not face significant obstacles in obtaining employment, housing and social services in Abuja solely on the basis of their non-indigene status. [43] Finally, the Appellants argue that, as non-indigenes, they would be at risk of physical harm and rely on documentary evidence regarding attacks on

foreigners.37 I have reviewed this evidence and found that in the list of profiles provided of persons who are more likely to be targeted for ransom, it is mentioned that this includes "foreign nationals" and "expatriates".38 There is no indication in this document or anywhere else in the NDP that non-indigenes would be considered as "foreign nationals" or "expatriates", and I do not find that this can be reasonably inferred from the documentary evidence. In particular, the Appellants have not explained why this would be the case in Abuja, given the above-cited clear evidence regarding the diversity of its population and limited role played by indigeneship within the national capital. [44] For all these reasons, I dismiss the Appellants' argument that their non-indigene status would make relocation to Abuja unreasonable in their particular circumstances. 2- The PA's mental health concerns [45] Regarding the mental health concerns of the PA, who had provided a psychological assessment to the RPD, I find that the RPD erred by not providing explicit reasons showing the report had been considered even if the PA's mental health concerns were not raised by him or his counsel at hearing, given that psychological evidence is central to the question of whether the IFA is reasonable and cannot be disregarded.39 [46] I have reviewed the report of the psychotherapist as part of my

independent analysis, and I note that the report indicates that the PA was diagnosed with XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with a proposed treatment plan of regular psychotherapy sessions. The Appellants have not provided evidence to show that the PA could not access health care facilities, including mental health care facilities, that offer psychotherapy sessions in Abuja. [47] My own review of the documentary evidence confirmed that the treatment of mental illness is possible in public hospitals and that there is no form of mental illness for which treatment is not available in Nigeria, though human resources are not sufficient for the country's needs.40 Documentary evidence also indicates that treatment facilities are mainly located in the urban areas which has a significant intra-country disparity in the mental health personnel resource distribution.41 [48] Given this objective evidence, the Appellants' testimony as to their financial means, and that they have not provided further arguments or proof indicating that such services would be unavailable or inaccessible to the PA if and as required in Abuja, I find that his mental health concerns would not make the proposed IFA unreasonable on the high threshold set by the Federal Court of Appeal.42 [49] I will also examine the new concerns raised regarding the PA's son below, in light of the new evidence

admitted in the context of this appeal. ii. The new evidence regarding the PA's son's mental health concerns also does not render the proposed IFA of Abuja unreasonable [50] The Medical Note dated XXXX XXXX, 2020, was admitted as new evidence showing that the PA's son was also diagnosed with XXXX and XXXX after he was admitted to the XXXX Emergency Department on XXXX XXXX, 2020. [51] According to the psychiatrist who drafted the report, the PA's son "will not get the trauma informed mental health treatment that he needs, should the family be required to return to Nigeria"43, leading to a deterioration of his mental health as a result. [52] I have already outlined above the documentary evidence showing that mental health treatment is available in Nigeria. Additionally, I do not consider that this declaration made by the psychiatrist regarding the availability of care in Nigeria carries weight, given that it does not appear to be based on specialized knowledge of the situation in Nigeria but rather on the assertions made by the Appellants to the psychiatrist. The Federal Court cautions that little weight should be attached to expert reports that advocate in the guise of an opinion and "propose to settle important issues to be decided by the tribunal".44 It also recognizes that mental health professionals go beyond the bounds of their expertise when giving country condition

evidence.45 [53] Moreover, it has recently been reiterated by the Court that evidence provided by an expert, even if relevant, is not irrebuttable or binding on the decision-maker, as outlined by the Supreme Court in White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co46, and that such evidence must be weighed with caution in view of IRPA and relevant case-law; it cannot usurp the legitimate role of the decision-maker in the sense that it does not in itself dictate the application of IRPA.47 [54] In the present case, I find that the above-cited evidence regarding the availability of mental health care in Nigeria outweighs the concerns shared by the Canadian psychiatrist regarding the availability of care in Nigeria which was seemingly beyond her expertise. Therefore, I find that the PA's son would also be able to access treatment for his mental health concerns, on a balance of probabilities. [55] The Appellants have not raised additional concerns on appeal as to the reasonableness of the proposed IFA, and I find that those raised before the RPD were sufficiently and correctly addressed by the RPD in its decision. I agree with the conclusions set forth, namely: -that neither language skills nor religion would pose a barrier given that they are Christians and speak English; -that based on the PA's level of education and work experience, he would be able to find

employment; -that the proposed transportation and travel to Abuja would not render an IFA there unreasonable or unduly harsh; -and that, while crime is a factor, the PA would be in a position to afford accommodations in a safe neighbourhood in Abuja. [56] For all these reasons, I do not find that it would be unduly harsh or objectively unreasonable for the Appellants to relocate to Abuja in the present case and the RPD was correct in its conclusion. [57] In sum, the Appellants have not shown that they face a serious possibility of being persecuted in Abuja, nor that their relocation would be unreasonable or unduly harsh. It follows that the existence of a viable IFA is fatal to their claim.48

CONCLUSION [58] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (signed) Daphnée Ouellet Daphnée Ouellet June 28, 2021 Date DO/in 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, paras. 14-34. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX, pp. 43-46. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, pp. 3-4. 4 Elezi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 240 (CanLII), [2008] 1 FCR 365, para. 27. 5 According to Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, I can only accept evidence that: i. arose after the RPD decision; or ii. was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. 6 Mavangou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 177 (CanLII), citing: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 230, and Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 (CanLII). 7 The evaluation of newness is defined as follows: "Newness: Is the evidence new in the sense that it is capable of: (a) proving the current state of affairs in the country of removal or an event that occurred or a circumstance that arose after the hearing in the RPD, or (b) proving a fact that was unknown to the refugee claimant at the time

of the RPD hearing, or (c) contradicting a finding of fact by the RPD (including a credibility finding)? See: Mavangou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 177 (CanLII), para. 24, citing: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 230, and Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 (CanLII). 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX, p. 45, para. 17. 9 Galamb v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 580 (CanLII), para. 11. 10 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] 4 FCR 157; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, [2019] 2 FCR 597. 11 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.). 12 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada ( Minister of Employment and Immigration ), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589. 13 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164, para. 15. 14 Recording of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2019, at minutes 1h10-1h16; Transcript of December 20, 2019, RPD Hearing, p. 32, at lines 5-20. 15 Ibid. 16 Exhibit RAD-1, National Documentation Package (NDP), Nigeria, April 16, 2021, tab 13.1: ?Role of indigeneship in obtaining employment, housing and social services; how indigeneship is established and identified; obstacles

faced by non-indigenes when relocating to Abuja, Lagos or Port Harcourt; assistance available to those who ... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 30 October 2019. NGA106361.E, p. 14. [N.B. This was available in the previous NDP before the RPD]. 17 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP, Nigeria, April 16, 2021, tab 1.8: ?DFAT Country Information Report: Nigeria. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 9 March 2018, p. 15. [N.B. This was available in the previous NDP before the RPD]. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP, Nigeria, 29 November 2019, tab 1.6: ?Nigeria. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 13 November 2019. 19 A.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 90 (CanLII), para. 45. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, para. 22. 21 Zeferino v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 456 (CanLII), para. 32. 22 Olajide v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 197 (CanLII), para. 11; Dan-Ash v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 93 N.R. 33 (F.C.A.). 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Amended BOC, paras. 28-29. 24 Recording of RPD Hearing, December 20, 2019, at minutes 1h10-1h15; Transcript of December 20, 2019, RPD Hearing, p. 30, at lines 30 et seq. 25 A.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 915 (CanLII), paras. 20-24. 26 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and

Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164, para. 15. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid., para. 16. 29 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP, Nigeria, 16 April 2021, tab 7.3: Kidnapping for ransom, including frequency, profile of victims and kidnappers; response by authorities (2013-July 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 31 July 2014. NGA104917.E. [N.B. This document is referenced by the Appellants, but was already available in the previous NDP before the RPD]. 30 Iyere v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 67 (CanLII), para. 33: "Whether the relocation to the IFA is unreasonable is an objective test and the onus is on the applicants to establish on objective evidence that the relocation to the IFA is unreasonable. It is not for the Board to prove that it is reasonable, as the applicants suggest." 31 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP, Nigeria, 16 April 2021, tab 7.3: Kidnapping for ransom, including frequency, profile of victims and kidnappers; response by authorities (2013-July 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 31 July 2014. NGA104917.E. [N.B. This document is referenced by the Appellants, but was already available in the previous NDP before the RPD]. 32 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP, Nigeria, 16 April 2021, tab 13.1: ?Role of indigeneship in obtaining employment, housing and social services; how indigeneship is established and identified; obstacles faced by non-indigenes when relocating

to Abuja, Lagos or Port Harcourt; assistance available to those who ... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 30 October 2019. NGA106361.E. [N.B. This was available in the previous NDP before the RPD]. 33 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP, Nigeria, 16 April 2021, tab 13.1: ?Role of indigeneship in obtaining employment, housing and social services; how indigeneship is established and identified; obstacles faced by non-indigenes when relocating to Abuja, Lagos or Port Harcourt; assistance available to those who ... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 30 October 2019. NGA106361.E. [N.B. This was available in the previous NDP before the RPD]. 34 Ibid. p. 16. 35 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP, Nigeria, April 16, 2021, tab 1.8: ?DFAT Country Information Report: Nigeria. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 9 March 2018, p. 32. [N.B. This was available in the previous NDP before the RPD]. 36 Ibid., p. 16. 37 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP, Nigeria, April 16, 2021, tab 7.3: Kidnapping for ransom, including frequency, profile of victims and kidnappers; response by authorities (2013-July 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 31 July 2014. NGA104917.E. [N.B. This document is referenced by the Appellants, and was already available in the previous NDP before the RPD]. 38 Ibid., p. 3. 39 Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1995 CanLII 3495 (FC), 97 F.T.R. 139, [1995] F.C.J.

No. 1044. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP, Nigeria, 29 November 2019, , tab 1.9: ?Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Medical and Healthcare Issues. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. 28 August 2018, p. 16 [N.B. I note that an updated version of this document exists in the April 16, 2021 NDP, however not updates or changes are noted as regards the section relating to Mental Health]. 41 Ibid. 42 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164, para. 15. 43 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, XXXX Medical Note, p. 4. 44 Czesak v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 1149 (CanLII), at paras 37-40. 45 Solis Mendoza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 203 (CanLII), para. 55. 46 White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23 (CanLII), [2015] 2 SCR 182. 47 Melnyk v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CF 503, para. 12 [my translation]. 48 Sharma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 545, para. 15. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC0-08773 MC0-08774 / MC0-08775 RAD.25.02 (May 19, 2021) 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 (May 19, 2021) Disponible en français