MA8-05821

Immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié Section de la protection des réfugiés RPD File / No dossier SPR : MA8-05821 Private Proceeding Huis clos Claimant(s) Demandeur(e)s d'asile XXXX XXXXX Date(s) of Hearing Date(s) de l'audience October 5, 2010 Place of Hearing Lieu de l'audience Montréal, Québec Date of decision Date de la décision December 13, 2010 Panel Tribunal Patrick Lemieux Claimant's Counsel Conseil du demandeur d'asile Me Annick Legault Tribunal Officer Agent du tribunal Guylaine Fortin Designated representative Représentant désigné N/A Minister's Counsel Conseil du ministre N/A [1] [1] XXXX XXXXX claims to be a 23-year-old citizen of Nigeria and seeks refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act1 (the Act). ALLEGATIONS [2] The allegations in the claimant's Personal Information Form (PIF) can be summarized as follows. [3] In XXXXX 2004, the claimant violated a tradition in her home village and was sentenced by the village elders to death. With the help of her father, she escaped to XXXXX where she met XXXXX XXXXX who helped her flee the country in XXXXX 2005 in exchange of agreeing to the payment of 50,000 Euros once in Italy. The claimant was later forced into prostitution in order to repay this debt. In XXXXX 2005, she was arrested by the police and upon providing information against Mr. XXXXX, was subsequently provided status in the country along with shelter services. In XXXXX 2007, Mr. XXXXX retraced the claimant, seeking payment of the debt and uttering threats to her. In XXXXX that year, she contacted XXXXX, a client/boyfriend, and sought his assistance in leaving the country, which she did in XXXXX 2008 with the help of a false Italian passport. She arrived in Montreal by airplane on XXXXX and immediately requested asylum. She was then seven months pregnant and was detained for identity purposes until XXXXX, 2008. DETERMINATION [4] Although humanitarian and compassionate reasons may justify not returning the claimant to Nigeria, the panel finds that the claimant is not a "Convention Refugee" pursuant to section 96 of the Act nor a "person in need of protection" pursuant to section 97(1) of the Act. GENDER GUIDELINES [5] In making the determination, the panel followed the Chairperson's Guideline for Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.2 ANALYSIS [6] The claimant's unfortunate story is, generally, plausible in the Nigerian context, both in regards to the threat of death for having disobeyed a village tradition as well as the serious problem of trafficking in persons. Despite several concerns regarding her credibility, notably in reference to her identity as well as her status in Italy, the panel nonetheless accepts that the claimant has satisfactorily established her identity3, her lack of status in Italy, her fears and the reasons underlying these fears. In light of this, the determinative issue in this matter is the existence of an internal flight alternative (IFA) where, if necessary, adequate and effective state protection could be found. [7] Indeed, the claimant did not meet her burden of establishing on a balance of probabilities that there was a serious possibility of persecution or a probable risk of harm everywhere in Nigeria and that it would be unreasonable for her to seek refuge in another part of her country, namely Abuja. Failure to do so is, in and of itself, sufficient to dispose of her claim. [8] When asked why she could not live safely in the proposed IFA, the claimant raised several arguments, which the panel disposes of as follows: The person who forced her into prostitution (the Agent) will find and harm her. She may be immediately killed, injured and/or forced to repay the debt she allegedly owes the Agent. This could involve being once again forced into prostitution. [9] The claimant testified that her Agent is a well-connected and resourced individual, with the interest and the capacity to locate her anywhere in the country. She bases this claim on several factors, including the fact that: * his business is trafficking in people, as her own ordeal with him testifies to as well as the fact that he kept showing her photos of women he claimed were "his girls"; * he was always busy on his phone and received many calls; * he goes everywhere and they could "bump" into each other in Abuja just as they met in XXXXX in 2005; * he had always warned her that he was her "shadow"; * he had a photo of her, as well as a thumbprint and lock of hair. With the help of the "oracle", he could use these to retrace her; * his money would allow him to have the police work for him; * he was able to retrace her in Italy by phoning her cell phone after she left the protective custody of the Italian authorities; [10] Her attorney further added that the Agent does not work alone, but on the contrary has a whole organisation behind him, as witnessed by the fact he had the capacity to make the claimant travel to Italy on a false Italian passport. [11] For the following reasons, the panel disagrees. [12] To begin with, the documentary evidence4 is abundant on the issue of human trafficking involving Nigerians. Over ninety pages are contained in seven reports, in addition to those produced by the claimant. Some of these present general statements on the state of affairs in Nigeria, offering mainly conclusions with little to no analysis or information on their sources and what these said. Others simply re-hash information found in the other reports. One report in particular5 presents detailed facts and diverging opinions from a number of on-the-ground sources, but offers little analysis or conclusions. Recognizing that many sources found in this documentary evidence have vested interests in the topics under review, the panel appreciated their opinions and statements accordingly. [13] After carefully reviewing all of this documentary evidence as well as the claimant's evidence, the panel finds that it is unlikely the Agent would have the interest or the capacity to locate the claimant in Abuja, despite the elements raised above by the claimant and her attorney. [14] Firstly, there are no official records regarding threats or reprisals from traffickers against victims of prostitution in Nigeria, including in the media. Though it is possible that an agent will seek to obtain payment and to this end have recourse to various forms of intimidation and/or violence, this risk needs to be weighed taking into consideration the financial component of the matter: the Agent likely initially invested an amount of approximately 2-3,000 Euros in the claimant.6 Though more expenses may have followed over the short period during which she was under his control in Italy, this and much more may also have been recovered by him through her work. Considering there is no shortage of unsuspecting, younger women to tap into in Nigeria, the panel considers it unlikely the Agent would expend the effort to retrace the claimant, especially considering the fact that he knows she no longer is a naïve teenager without insight into his misdoings. Put differently, the Agent likely lacks the financial incentive to trouble himself over the claimant; furthermore, her knowledge and experience today likely make her a much less interesting victim. Accordingly, he likely has no interest in pursuing her, directly or via the organisation that may or may not support him. [15] Moreover, the last time she saw her Agent was in XXXXX 2005 - over five years ago, while the last news she alleges to have received of him dates back to 2007 when she lived in Italy. At that point, he allegedly threatened her several times over the phone, but never attempted to carry out these threats or to physically confront her between his first such call in XXXXX 2007 and her departure to Canada in XXXXX 2008. During this 15 month period, she remained at the same address and continued to resort to prostitution to financially survive. The panel draws two probable inferences from this: either he lacked the will to pursue his threats and eventually lost interest in the claimant; or, he remained interested but lacked the capacity to locate her physically, despite having her phone number and despite her continued activities in a trade he apparently knows quite well. Both these inferences lead the panel to conclude that today, the Agent would likely not be capable of retracing her in Nigeria or would no longer be interested in doing so. [16] The panel also draws a negative inference regarding the Agent's interest in the claimant today on the fact that he apparently has never attempted to contact her family to retrace her, despite having their address. If the Agent truly was interested in the claimant, either to recuperate her or simply to punish her for her actions, the panel finds it likely he would seek vengeance upon her family, or at the very least attempt to solicit information from them. However, no such thing has happened, as far as the claimant is aware. In this regard, the panel notes a rather misleading statement by the claimant in the point-of-entry notes7 wherein she appears to blame her Agent for the death of her father. During her testimony, she admitted she was "just imagining" this and had no proof. Considering her father passed away on his way to the hospital after complaining of a headache, the panel considers it highly unlikely the Agent had anything to do with the death. [17] Finally, the panel does not consider it likely that the Agent could retrace the claimant or accidentally "bump" into her in Abuja, a city of some five million people.8 It makes this finding, despite the Agent's alleged connections, considering amongst other things the geographic and population characteristics of the African continent's most populous country as well as the fact that the claimant does not have a particularly high profile or apparent distinguishing features and knows no one in the city, except her sister. [18] Alternatively, the panel finds that even if the claimant was found by the Agent, it would not be objectively unreasonable for her to seek state protection in Abuja considering it would be reasonably forthcoming, adequate and effective and the claimant would not need money to obtain it. [19] Indeed, the panel finds that the Nigerian Government, mainly through the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP9), is able, both in theory and in practice, to offer victims of trafficking adequate protection against physical violence from their agents, including victims who remain indebted to their agents as the claimant allegedly is. This capacity extends to supporting and protecting victims of trafficking - who have expressed fear of retaliation, acts of revenge or persecution by agents - both when they originally arrive at an international airport in the country, such as in Abuja or Lagos, as well as once they are settled in an area of their choice. Though this protection is not perfect, and cannot be guaranteed to all victims, those who return on a case-by-case basis (by opposition to returning in large groups) will more likely than not be able to enjoy protection by NAPTIP, particularly if the agency is notified in advance.10 [20] The panel summarizes in the following three paragraphs some of the conclusions put forward in the US Department of State 2010 report for Nigeria on Trafficking in Persons.11 Though this report does not detail some of the contrary opinions of various stakeholders reported in the April 2008 Danish Immigration Service's report12, like those of the Legal Resources Consortium (LRC) and Women's Consortium of Nigeria (WOCON) on certain aspects of state protection, nor does it present nuances that a complicated topic such as the combat of human trafficking deserves, the panel nevertheless finds it is most probative and satisfactorily summarizes the current situation in Nigeria on the following matters. [21] Prosecution : the Government of Nigeria sustained law enforcement efforts to combat trafficking during the last year. The 2003 Trafficking in Persons Law Enforcement and Administration Act (the Trafficking in Persons Act), amended in 2005 to increase penalties for trafficking offenders, prohibits all forms of human trafficking. The law's prescribed penalties of 10 years to life imprisonment for sex trafficking are sufficiently stringent and commensurate with penalties prescribed for other serious crimes, such as rape. In 2009, the NAPTIP reported 149 investigations, 26 prosecutions, and 25 convictions of trafficking offenses. Sentences ranged from two months to 10 years, with an average sentence of 2.66 years' imprisonment; only two convicted offenders were offered the option of paying a fine instead of serving prison time. By comparison, the NAPTIP investigated 209 trafficking cases in 2008, 37 of which were prosecuted, resulting in the conviction of 19 sex traffickers and four labor traffickers. Sentences imposed on convicted traffickers ranged from six months to 40 years' imprisonment. One sex trafficking offender received a sentence of 40 years' imprisonment, two received sentences of 24 years' imprisonment, and others received two, five, and seven-year sentences. Six sex traffickers received sentences of one year's imprisonment or less.13 [22] Protection: The Trafficking in Persons Act provides for treatment, protection, and non-discriminatory practices for victims, including no detention for trafficking victims detained for any offense committed as a result of being trafficked. Nigeria continued its efforts to protect trafficking victims in 2009. Data provided by NAPTIP reflected a total of 1,109 victims identified and provided assistance at one of NAPTIP's many shelters throughout the country during 2009. Although a victim can only stay in such a shelter for a limited time, NAPTIP will subsequently refer a victim to shelters belonging to one of many non-governmental organizations (NGOs). According to at least one such NGO (WOTCLEF - Women Trafficking and Child Labour Eradication Foundation), a victim can stay in its shelter in Abuja for as long as is necessary.14 Various government agencies referred trafficking victims to NAPTIP for sheltering and other protective services (for example, victims serving as witnesses were appointed divisional police officers to serve as witness protection officers15). Shelter staff assessed the needs of victims upon arrival and provided food, clothing, shelter, recreational activities, and instruction on various skills, including vocational training (70 victims benefited from this during 2009). NAPTIP estimated the government's 2009 spending on its shelter facilities to be $666,000, while the overall budget was over 7 million dollars. Officials encouraged victims to assist with the investigation and prosecution of traffickers, and victims served as witnesses in all of NAPTIP's successful cases. Moreover, victims could theoretically seek redress through civil suits against traffickers, or claim funds from a Victims' Trust Fund set up in 2009 through which assets confiscated from traffickers are transferred to victims (according to an IRIN report in March 2010, two traffickers in Sokoto State had seen their assets seized for this purpose16). [23] Prevention: The Government of Nigeria sustained strong efforts to raise awareness of human trafficking over the last year. NAPTIP's Public Enlightenment Unit worked throughout the reporting period on national and local programming to raise awareness. For example, in rural Benue, Kogi, and Edo States, NAPTIP introduced grassroots programs and held its first annual race against human trafficking in Edo State with 5,000 runners. NAPTIP also worked with Immigration Services to monitor emigration and immigration patterns for evidence of trafficking. The long-established Stakeholder Forum17 continued quarterly meetings in Abuja to foster collaboration among agencies. [24] To help appreciate the adequacy and effectiveness of state protection in Nigeria for trafficking victims like the claimant, the panel refers to the United States "three-tiers" system, a placement system based on the extent of government action to combat trafficking.18 The analyses are based on the extent of governments' efforts to reach compliance with the minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). Tier 1 countries are those whose governments fully comply with the minimum standards. This is the highest ranking, though it does not mean that a country has no human trafficking problem or that such a problem is under control. On the contrary, a Tier 1 ranking indicates that a government has acknowledged the existence of human trafficking, has made efforts to address the problem, and meets the TVPA's minimum standards. Each year, governments need to demonstrate appreciable progress in combating trafficking to maintain a Tier 1 ranking. For at least the last two years, Nigeria has maintained this Tier 1 ranking. Apart from the small island of Mauritius, it is the only African country to do so. It shares this ranking with Canada, the US, the UK and approximately only 25 other countries out of 175 evaluated, placing it ahead of countries such as Switzerland, Portugal, Greece and Japan. [25] As regards the impact of corruption on state protection availability for trafficking victims - identified by the claimant as the reason she would not seek state protection and qualified by the documentary evidence19 as massive, widespread, and pervasive at all levels of government and throughout the security forces - the Danish Immigration Service's report 20 generally portrays a rather upbeat picture. It acknowledges reports that law enforcement officers and individuals in the immigration and airport authorities collaborated in trafficking persons across Nigeria's borders, but that the majority of instances were attributed to ignorance of the trafficking law and difficulties overcoming traditional practices. It reports that NAPTIP was very active in providing sensitisation, including to police and customs in attending training. WOCON stated that the Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTU) of the Nigerian Immigration Services and Nigerian Police Force (NPF) are not flawed by corruption as the NPF generally is, and the two AHTUs are better trained and informed about the trafficking issue which means that they show empathy in their approach to the victims of trafficking. The LRC essentially agreed with this statement and another source emphasized that the AHTU is not influenced by the corruption that prevails in the NPF. The panel also notes in passing that the law provides penalties for officials who aid or abet trafficking.21 [26] In sum, the Nigerian Government has had, through its efforts over the years, an enormous impact on the fight against trafficking22 and it continues to demonstrate commitment to eradicating it. It is, in fact, at the forefront of regional efforts to confront the problem. Despite the problem remaining, the battle against human trafficking is gradually being won, with many of the victims coming back and being rehabilitated.23 Though the relative number of convicted traffickers remains low and the quality of care provided to victims can be compromised by inadequate funding, adequate protection is generally available to victims like the claimant, both in practice and in theory. As our courts have recognized, States do not have to provide 100 percent effective protection; they need only make a serious effort. The panel finds that such is the case in Nigeria and its authorities are willing and capable of providing adequate protection to the claimant. It is well established that it is the responsibility of a claimant to provide persuasive evidence ("clear and convincing proof") to the contrary.24 In cases where the claimant cannot rely on the more standard or typical forms of evidence as "clear and convincing proof" of failure of state protection, reference may need to be made to alternative forms of evidence to meet the "clear and convincing" test, such as the testimony of women in similar situations where there was a failure of state protection, or the testimony of the claimant herself regarding past personal incidents or those of people she knows where state protection did not materialize. No such evidence was established and the panel prefers the above-mentioned evidence to the claimant's general assertion that without money, no police protection would be forthcoming. Accordingly, the panel finds that even if the Agent was interested and capable of finding the claimant - which the panel finds not to be the case, adequate and effective state protection would be reasonably forthcoming and it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant, with the benefit of her experience in Italy as well as her recent stay in Canada, not to seek it. [27] For all these reasons, the panel finds the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution or a probable risk of harm in Abuja in reference to her fear of her Agent. In addition to the above-analysed fear in regards to her Agent, the village elders who sought to murder her in 2004 will find her and carry out their threat. [28] Though the plausibility of being sentenced to death for having been seen outside her house during a traditional festival is suspect, the panel nevertheless accepts that in the Nigerian context, such a situation may indeed occur. However, even assuming her story to be truthful in this respect, the claimant's testimony regarding the exact identity of the village elders and kingsmen (the "Village Elders") she feared was rather vague. So was her account of her brother XXXXX recent warning that the Village Elders were still looking for her - to the point where the panel does not believe it. When asked whether the Village Elders would come get her in Abuja if they knew of her location, even the claimant admitted that they may or may not. Considering murders have been actively prosecuted by the Nigerian government, including ritual murders such as those feared by the claimant25, the panel finds it unlikely the Village Elders would show interest in the claimant more than five years after the incident, especially if she did not return to her home village but remained in Abuja. [29] Even if they were still interested, the claimant did not satisfactorily establish how the Village Elders would be able to locate her in Abuja. Her reference to their use of the oracle does not credibly establish the likelihood of this happening in a country of 140 million people. Nor does her fear that news of her return and location could travel, through her mother and her mother's friends, and be brought to the Village Elder's attention. Abuja is hundreds and hundreds of kilometers away from Delta State, and considering the mother is supportive of the claimant, the panel finds she could be counted on to protect her daughter's location. [30] Alternatively, even if the Village Elders were capable and interested in finding the claimant in Abuja, the panel believes that effective and adequate state protection would be reasonably forthcoming to her and that it would be reasonable for her to seek it should she anticipate or encounter any problems in Abuja. As mentioned above, ritual murders are actively prosecuted. Regarding the impact of the police's notorious corruption on accessing this protection, the panel acknowledges the documentary evidence26 that essentially reports corruption and extortion as defining characteristics associated with the police forces. However, systems for investigating police misconduct exist, and though in practice these are too often a charade, especially when dealing with extra-judicial killings by the police, they nevertheless result in police officers being disciplined and dismissed. Furthermore, the panel believes that contrary to how the claimant understandably portrayed it, she would not simply be a single woman alone facing local police in XXXXX village, only too reluctant to intervene in the business of local, male, village elders. Rather, she would be in Abuja, the country's capital city, seeking protection from murder alongside the various NGOs mentioned below who would likely have the appropriate weight and connections to help the claimant elicit an adequate response from the authorities. Moreover, any involvement of NAPTIP in the context of her fear of the Agent would also likely contribute in a meaningful and positive manner to ensuring she was offered effective and adequate state protection. [31] Considering all of the above, the panel finds the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution or a probable risk of harm in Abuja in reference to her fear of the Village Elders. The claimant's family struggles to survive and with no one to assist her and her child, she cannot live in Nigeria. [32] Starving to death is what the claimant fears in the long run, as she has no one to turn to for assistance. Such is the plight of other single women in Nigeria according to her, though she knows no one who has met such a fate but has read this in the news. Asked how her step-mother and her own three children (the claimant's half-brothers and half-sister) manage in XXXXX, she confirmed they "survive on charity by XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX". As regards her brothers, one lives in XXXXX and works as a XXXXX XXXXX, supporting his wife and child. The other is single and a XXXXX XXXXX in XXXXX, in the northern part of the country. As regards her two sisters, she claims not to know much about their situation, other than one is in XXXXX and another in XXXXX, both married and "fine" according to what her mother informs her. They have allegedly all asked her for financial assistance, but she has limited such assistance to helping out her old and ill mother, to the tune of some 400$ since she has arrived in Canada. Asked about other sources of help, the claimant responded she knows of no NGOs or governmental organizations that can help and questions what would happen to her and her child in the long run. She also has never heard of religious organizations bringing assistance to people. Based on all of this, the claimant does not believe she could survive on her own in Abuja. [33] Though the panel empathizes with the claimant, it does not share her perspective on the matter, as it finds that the documentary evidence supports the view that internal relocation is a viable option for women in the claimant's situation. Indeed, recent research and consultation27 with several ostensibly authoritative sources "on the ground", including women's rights groups and independent women's shelter NGOs in Nigeria, recognizes that even without family and social networks, relocation is possible and support services for women are available. Though it paints a grim picture of the reality facing such women and presents at times contradictory perspectives, it essentially reports that through religious congregations and NGOs (such as the Daughters of Abraham), shelter, counseling, legal assistance, vocational training and post-shelter assistance in the form of empowerment, as well as assistance to find accommodation and/or employment for relocating women, is available. Even the Government has started providing relevant services, albeit in limited quantities and for durations of four to five months only, under the Federal Ministry of Women's Affairs and Social Development. [34] As for the NAPTIP28, it operates several shelters in the country, including in Lagos and Abuja, (total capacity : approximately 420 people per night) with first aid capacity, a visiting medical doctor and referral capacity to hospitals. As mentioned above, a victim can benefit from sheltering services by being referred by NAPTIP to one of many NGOs for as long as is necessary. Moreover, reintegration assistance is reportedly available for women in the claimant's situation. Though it is dependent on sufficient funding, it delivers assistance in the form of counseling, skills training and micro finance support to become self-employed and fully reintegrated into the society.29 As per above, hundreds of women fleeing sexual exploitation have benefited from this. [35] In determining the reasonableness of the claimant's recourse to the proposed IFA, the panel has taken into consideration her ability, because of her gender, to safely travel to Abuja. It notes in this respect that the claimant's return flight from Canada would likely be able to land her in Abuja without having to travel overland from XXXXX. Even if this were not the case, the panel would still find the claimant is more likely than not able to safely travel to Abuja despite the risks raised by the claimant regarding road robberies and accidents. Indeed, Nigeria is a relatively safe country as regards crime rates30 and the claimant has been able to travel on her own between her home town and XXXXX on several occasions, despite it being "very far" (roughly 9 hours of travel by road according to the claimant). [36] Moreover, in making this determination, the panel also has given due regards to various factors, including religious, cultural and economic factors, that could force the claimant to face undue hardship in staying in Abuja. To begin with, she is a youthful and apparently healthy person who has succeeded in establishing herself half-way across the world, far from family and friends. The panel is sensitive to the fact that, victim of rape at the hands of her Agent and reduced by him to prostitution in Italy, the claimant has undergone both mental and physical abuses that will forever leave their scars. She understandably affirms that she cannot imagine being with a man again. Though this may be so, the panel does not however believe she is incapable of functioning normally in society. She has indeed shown resilience, courage and determination in the past, both before and after her ordeal with the Agent. To wit, as a young teenager of barely 12 years, she left her home on her own volition and put herself through secondary school in XXXXX, believing schools in the bigger cities were better than those in her home town. This, she essentially accomplished by working while studying and with the guidance of a friend, "XXXXX" - not with the help of her parents. She also managed to escape her Agent's control in Italy and establish herself in that country, before taking steps to leave for Canada. [37] Secondly, though religious tensions exist throughout the country and particularly in the middle belt states such as Plateau, the capital city is known to host large numbers of both Muslims and Christians.31 In light of the claimant's testimony that she is a good Christian since arriving in Canada, the panel finds that the claimant would more likely than not encounter a supportive community in that respect in Abuja. [38] Furthermore, it is a metropolitan city serving as the nation's capital, where arguably people migrate from many parts of the country. It consequently hosts a wide array of ethnic and linguistic groups, to the point that all ethnic groups are represented in the city according to the documentary evidence.32 This evidence furthermore states that although ethnic affiliation might play a significant role in some rural locations, notably in regards to job opportunities, it generally does not represent a major issue in connection with internal relocation in the larger cities, such as Abuja. Moreover, support networks are not necessarily limited to a certain ethnic group. To wit, Christian and Muslim congregations, recognized as being important networks and sources of assistance in times of need, generally consider the ethnicity of congregation members to be irrelevant.33 [39] In terms of other relevant factors, the documentary evidence recognizes that Nigerian women face societal discrimination and that they generally remain marginalized, despite some positive improvements, including legislation and the impact of education on breaking down various barriers.34 The claimant would necessarily be exposed to this reality in Abuja. However, it was not established that this discrimination amounts to persecution or that it would render living conditions unduly harsh for the claimant - taken alone or in conjunction with other factors. In the panel's view, this reality adds a level of complexity to women living in Nigeria generally, but does not exclude the existence of an IFA in the country. [40] Finally, in terms of economic factors, the panel appreciates the claimant's limited working experience. She undoubtedly will therefore face a number of economic constraints, compounded by the fact that she is now responsible for her own child. Nigeria has no welfare system and people mainly rely on their immediate and extended family in times of need and crisis. Accepting the facts as alleged by the claimant, relying on her mother and numerous siblings, appears to be impossible. Assuming this is true and would not change if she reached out to them, the documentary evidence nonetheless reports that relying on immediate and extended family is not the only option. Many Nigerians establish other support networks that may complement or (in some cases) replace the extended family. Examples of such support networks are religious congregations, religious organisations, age grades/sets, political organisations, charities, secret societies and guilds.35 [41] In addition to these support networks, the various aforementioned governmental and non-governmental organisations are available, for short-term and medium-term assistance, to help sustain the claimant and her child. This, while seeking longer-term autonomy in the form of an employment commensurate with her present skills or those she may acquire through the aforementioned training programs offered by various organisations. [42] In drawing this conclusion, the panel has taken into consideration the fact that the documentary evidence36 also reports that "taking to the streets" is unfortunately a frequent scenario for young women or women who do not have the capacity or the means to do otherwise; some may even eventually end up in brothels or become vulnerable to being trafficked - or in the claimant's case, re-trafficked. However, having carefully reviewed the documentary evidence and taking into consideration the claimant's personal situation, including having sojourned in Canada and benefited from legal services, the panel is of the view that the claimant can avoid such dire scenarios by seeking assistance from the various support services referred to above. This, whether she is in Abuja or in any other big city she may seek to establish herself in to avoid being found. In this respect, the panel takes comfort in some sources37 even insisting that any woman who is in need of assistance and protection in Nigeria will find it, irrespective of where she may be in the country, as long as she is aware of a women's group she can contact. With the benefit of her recent experiences, and through hotlines and organisations like LACVAW (Legislative Advocacy Coalition on Violence Against Women), the panel believes that being able to contact such an organization - and find assistance - is highly likely.38 [43] From all this, the panel recognizes that the relocation will have its challenges and likely be a very difficult, even harsh experience. However, this does not suffice to rule out an IFA. As set out by the courts39, the threshold the claimant must meet to establish that an IFA is unreasonable is a very high one, requiring nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize her life and safety. In the case at hand, the panel finds that the claimant has not met this test. Having carefully reviewed the documentary evidence, the panel indeed determines that Abuja as an IFA is a reasonable, realistic and attainable option for the claimant in her particular circumstances, one that would likely not jeopardize her life and safety. CONCLUSION [44] For all of the foregoing reasons, the panel determines that the claimant is not a "Convention refugee" within the meaning of section 96 of the Act, nor is she a "person in need of protection" with respect to section 97(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. Patrick Lemieux Patrick Lemieux December 13, 2010 Date /ajh REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / CUSTOM / VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / PROSTITUTION / GUIDELINES / GENDER / INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE / STATE PROTECTION / FEMALE / NEGATIVE / NIGERIA 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. 2 Women Refugee Claimants fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guidelines Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, March 9, 1993, Update, November 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002 under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 3 See Exhibits P-10 (the claimant's passport), and A-7 (an expertise confirming the passport is likely authentic). 4 Exhibit A-3, National Documentation Package on Nigeria, 30 August 2010, Tab 2.1 : United States (US). 30 August 2010. Department of State. "Nigeria." Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2009. (Section entitled " Trafficking in Persons "); Tab 2.2 : United Kingdom (UK). 9 July 2010. Home Office. Country of Origin Information Report: Nigeria (Chapter 26); Tab 2.3 : United Kingdom (UK). 14 April 2009. Home Office. Operational Guidance Note: Nigeria. (Section 3.10); Tab 2.5 : United Kingdom (UK) / Denmark. 29 October 2008. UK Border Agency / Danish Immigration Service. Report of Joint British-Danish Fact-Finding Mission to Lagos and Abuja, Nigeria: 9-27 September 2007 and 5-12 January 2008 (Sections 1 and 4); Tab 5.1 : United States (US). 2009. Department of State. "Nigeria (Tier 1)." Trafficking in Persons Report 2009; Tab 5.2: Denmark. April 2008. Danish Immigration Service. Protection of Victims of Trafficking in Nigeria: Report from Danish Immigration Service's Fact-Finding Mission to Lagos, Benin City and Abuja, Nigeria, 9 to 26 September 2007; Exhibit A-5, United States (US). 2010. Department of State. "Nigeria (Tier 1)." Trafficking in Persons Report 2010. 5 Exhibit A-3, National Documentation Package on Nigeria, 30 August 2010, Tab 5.2: Denmark. April 2008. Danish Immigration Service. Protection of Victims of Trafficking in Nigeria: Report from Danish Immigration Service's Fact-Finding Mission to Lagos, Benin City and Abuja, Nigeria, 9 to 26 September 2007. 6 Idem. 7 Exhibit A-2, Immigration Documents. 8 Exhibit A-1, National Documentation Package on Nigeria, 17 March 2010, Tab 1.3, Canada. August 2007. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). Country Fact Sheet: Nigeria. 9 The NAPTIP is a 555-employee agency with 175 investigators and 32 prosecutors nationwide. It has primary responsibility for combating trafficking. The Nigerian Police Force and the Nigerian Immigration Service also have antitrafficking units. (See Exhibit A-3, Tab 2.1 : United States (US). 30 August 2010. Department of State. "Nigeria." Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2009. Section entitled " Trafficking in Persons ", p. 46). 10 Supra, note 5. 11 Exhibit A-5, United States (US). 2010. Department of State. "Nigeria (Tier 1)." Trafficking in Persons Report 2010. 12 Supra, note 5. 13 Exhibit A-3, National Documentation Package on Nigeria, 30 August 2010, Tab 5.1 : United States (US). 2009. Department of State. "Nigeria (Tier 1)." Trafficking in Persons Report 2009. 14 Supra, note 5. 15 Exhibit A-3, National Documentation Package on Nigeria, 30 August 2010, Tab 2.1 : United States (US). 11 March 2010. Department of State. "Nigeria." Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2009. (Section 4 entitled " Official Corruption and Government Transparency"). 16 Exhibit A-3, National Documentation Package on Nigeria, 30 August 2010, Tab 2.2 : United Kingdom (UK). 9 July 2010. Home Office. Country of Origin Information Report: Nigeria (Chapter 26). 17 Established by NAPTIP to provide antitrafficking training to security and immigration officials and to raise awareness of trafficking issues among local government leaders, it is comprised of law enforcement officials, government representatives, NGO groups and diplomatic missions. 18 Exhibit A-5, United States (US). 2010. Department of State. "Nigeria (Tier 1)." Trafficking in Persons Report 2010 (Section entitled "Tiers placements" as well as pages 20 and 21 of introduction). 19 Supra, note 15. 20 Supra, note 5. 21 Supra, note 15. 22 Supra, note 5. 23 Exhibit P-6, Re-visiting Corruption and Human Trafficking in Nigeria: Any Progress? By Osita Agbu, an Associate Professor at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Lagos, Nigeria. Available on the UN's Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking website. 24 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85, at 724-726. 25 Exhibit A-3: National Documentation Package on Nigeria, 30 August 2010, Tab 16.2, NGA100384.E. 22 July 2005. Prevalence of ritual murder and human sacrifice and reaction by government authorities (March 2000 - July 2005). 26 Exhibit A-3, National Documentation Package on Nigeria, 30 August 2010, Tab 2.2: United Kingdom (UK). 9 June 2009. Home Office. UK Border Agency. Country of Origin Information Report: Nigeria (Section 8). 27 Exhibit A-3, National Documentation Package on Nigeria, 30 August 2010, Tab 2.5 : United Kingdom (UK) / Denmark. 29 October 2008. UK Border Agency / Danish Immigration Service. Report of Joint British-Danish Fact-Finding Mission to Lagos and Abuja, Nigeria: 9-27 September 2007 and 5-12 January 2008 (Section 1). 28 Supra, note 5; Exhibit P-8, Combatting Trafficking in Person: A Case Study of Nigeria, Tola OLOUJUWON, published within the European Journal of Scientific Research, ISSN 1450-216X, Vol. 24 No. 1 (2008) pp.23-32. 29 Supra, note 5. 30 Supra, note 26. 31 Exhibit A-3, National Documentation Package on Nigeria, 30 August 2010, Tab 12.1: United States (US). 2009. Department of State. "Nigeria." International Religious Freedom Report 2009. 32 Supra, note 27. 33 Exhibit A-3, National Documentation Package on Nigeria, 30 August 2010, Tab 1.4: Norway. 2006. Geir Skogseth. Landinfo: Country of Origin Information Centre. Report - Fact-Finding Trip to Nigeria (Abuja, Lagos and Benin City) 12-26 March 2006 (Section 2.4). 34 Supra, note 26. 35 Supra, note 33. 36 Supra, note 27. 37 Idem. 38 Idem. 39 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.). --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- RPD File / No dossier SPR : MA8-05821 18