VB9-04125

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-04125 VB9-04126 / VB9-04127 / VB9-04128 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 24, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Susan Brown Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Gabriel Ukueku 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 Appellants, XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant), his spouse, XXXX XXXX XXXX and their minor children XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, citizens of Nigeria, appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated May 7, 2019, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. The Principal Appellant is the designated representative for his minor children. [2] The Appellants fear the Principal Appellant's family and community elders because the adult Appellants are refusing to allow the minor Appellants to undergo traditional rituals. The RPD found that the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port Harcourt or Benin City. The Appellants submit that the RPD failed to conduct a proper analysis pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), erred in its IFA analysis and in its credibility determination. Following my independent review, I find that IFA is the determinative issue and the Appellants have a viable IFA in Port Harcourt or Benin City so I dismiss the appeals. BACKGROUND [3] According to their Basis of Claim Forms (BOCs),1 the Appellants were born in 1977, 1985, 2011 and 2014. [4] The Principal Appellant is a member of a royal family, in which all male members are forced to undergo "fortification" rituals. The first ritual takes place within the first month of birth and involves the intake of various concoctions. The second ritual takes place when the child turns seven and he is expected to be in a room for 21 days while receiving fortifications. The Principal Appellant underwent these rituals when he was a child and alleges that they pose health risks to the minor Appellants. [5] The elder minor Appellant was subjected to the first of the fortification rituals over the objections of the adult Appellants who were assaulted by community members when they tried to intervene. [6] In XXXX 2018 the Principal Appellant started receiving message and calls from elders reminding him to prepare the elder minor Appellant for the second ritual in XXXX 2018. When the Appellants refused the second ritual, they were threatened with death. [7] The Appellants sought help from police but they provided no assistance. The Appellants also sought help from the Ministry of Social Welfare but they also provided no assistance. The Appellants considered relocating in Nigeria but decided against it knowing the power and influence of Principal Appellant's family and community elders. [8] The Appellants went into hiding and fled the country on XXXX XXXX, 2018. The Appellants travelled to the United States and planned to claim asylum there, but decided against it due to immigration policies. The claimants then travelled to Canada. [9] The Appellants' claims were received on May 8, 2018 and heard on May 1, 2019. The RPD gave its decision on May 7, 2019. STANDARD OF RAD REVIEW [10] The RAD reviews decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it. The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing and weighing the oral testimony heard, which in particular cases attracts deference.2 Unless specifically stated below, I have applied the correctness standard. ANALYSIS [11] I find that the determinative issue is the viability of an IFA for the Appellants in Port Harcourt or Benin City. Following my own review of the record, the testimony of the Principal Appellant, the submissions of the Appellants and applying the framework of assessment outlined in the IFA Jurisprudential Guide,3 I find, for the reasons outlined below, that Port Harcourt or Benin City is a viable IFA for the Appellants. Preamble: IFA in Nigeria [12] Pursuant to section 159(1) (h) of the IRPA, the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board has identified a RAD decision4 (IFA Jurisprudential Guide) as a jurisprudential guide which addresses internal flight alternatives in major cities in south and central Nigeria for claimants fleeing non-state actors. This preamble is adapted from the IFA Jurisprudential Guide and sets out a framework for the assessment of IFA in Nigeria, generally, and specifically in south and central Nigeria where Port Harcourt and Benin City are located. [13] The Federal Court has recently found that this IFA Jurisprudential Guide does not unlawfully fetter Board members' discretion or improperly encroach upon their adjudicative independence because it repeatedly refers to the need for each case to be adjudicated on the basis of its particular facts.5 The Federal Court has made it clear that the IFA Jurisprudential Guide is only a guide and is not binding. [14] The test for assessing an IFA is two-pronged and is set out in the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Rasaratnam: 6 (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 subject 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 claim, for him to seek refuge there.7 [15] Both prongs must be satisfied to find that an appellant has an IFA. Once the issue of IFA has been raised and the potential IFAs have been identified, the burden of proof rests with an appellant to show that they do not have an IFA. The finding of an IFA must be based on a distinct evaluation of the region for that purpose, taking into account the appellant's personal circumstances. An IFA must be a realistic and attainable option. The appellant cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or undergo undue hardship in travelling there and staying there. [16] IFA in Nigeria is often considered by the RPD and RAD. After reviewing the relevant country documentation and jurisprudence, internal relocation in Nigeria is generally considered to be viable for refugee claimants and appellants fearing non-state actors. This framework applies to many types of claims from Nigeria where the stated fear is of non-state agents. The Federal Court has recently upheld determinative findings of viable IFAs in Nigeria in cases where the alleged fear is related to allegations of, for example, witchcraft,8 female genital mutilation (or the refusal to submit one's child to such mutilation),9 forced participation in rituals,10 Boko Haram, threats of domestic violence at the hands of a former partner, Fulani herdsmen, and kidnappers.11 [17] The UK Home Office Country Information and Guidance report for Nigeria states that where the person's fear is of persecution or serious harm at the hands of non-state agents, "relocation to another area of Nigeria is likely to be generally viable depending on the nature of the threat from non-state agents and individual circumstances of the person, and as long as it would not be unduly harsh to expect them to do so."12 [18] In addition, the UK Home Office Country Information and Guidance report for women fearing gender-based harm or violence in Nigeria states, "In general, it will not be unduly harsh for a woman to internally relocate to escape localized threats from members of their family or other non-state actors, especially if single and without children to support, but the individual circumstances of each case will need to be taken into account."13 [19] The documentation indicates that there are several very large, multilingual, multiethnic cities in south and central Nigeria, such as Lagos (population 13.123 million), Kano (3.587 million), Ibadan (3.16 million), the capital of Abuja (2.44 million), Port Harcourt (2.343 million), and Benin City (1.496 million),14 where persons fleeing non-state actors may be able to safely establish themselves, depending on their own particular circumstances. [20] While an analysis of whether a particular appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA under the first prong of the Rasaratnam test is necessarily fact-specific, as a general principle, Canadian courts have held that large urban areas cannot be assumed to be an IFA by virtue of their population size alone,15 and that the distance between the proposed IFA and the location of the persecutors does not in itself serve to establish that the proposed IFA is viable.16 That said, the IFA need not be far away from where the appellant has previously lived: the concept of an IFA does not require that the safe haven be in another city or province than the place of origin so long as it is truly an area in which the appellant can seek refuge from the persecution experienced in their home district.17 Ultimately, the question of whether an appellant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that they face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA will turn on their evidence, keeping in mind the general principles above. [21] In respect of analyzing the reasonableness of a proposed IFA, a general framework for analyzing reasonableness in the large urban centres in the south of Nigeria which are commonly referenced as potential IFAs could be useful, which of course would still require the necessary consideration of any particular appellant's specific circumstances and allegations, as discussed below. As a starting point, the Federal Court of Appeal has held that there is: ...a very high threshold for the unreasonableness test. 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. The absence of relatives in a safe place, whether taken alone or in conjunction with other factors, can only amount to such condition if it meets that threshold, that is to say if it establishes that, as a result, a claimant's life or safety would be jeopardized. This is in sharp contrast with undue hardship resulting from loss of employment, loss of status, reduction in quality of life, loss of aspirations, loss of beloved ones and frustration of one's wishes and expectations. The Court has reiterated the importance of not lowering that threshold.18 [22] There are a range of issues that inform the analysis of reasonableness of a proposed IFA with respect to any particular appellant, the most common and prominent of which include: transportation and travel, language, education and employment, accommodation, religion, indigeneship status, and the availability of medical and mental healthcare. In addition, the Gender Guideline19 specifically instructs that decision-makers should "take into account facts including religious, economic and cultural factors, and consider whether and how these factors affect women in the IFA." Each factor is reviewed below as it relates generally to Nigeria, before applying the factors to an appellant's specific circumstances in the proposed IFA. [23] Transportation and Travel: In analyzing the viability of a proposed IFA, consideration must be given to the Gender Guideline,20 which states in part: "in determining the reasonableness of a woman's recourse to an internal flight alternative (IFA), decision-makers should consider the ability of women, because of their gender, to travel safely to the IFA and to stay there without facing undue hardship." Nigeria is a large country with an area of over 900,000 square kilometres in 36 states, and a population of over 170 million people. Nigerians have the right to reside in any part of the country.21 The documentary evidence shows that all main centres are linked by road; in addition, many of the large urban centres boast international airports,22 which mitigate in favour of viability of the proposed IFA in terms of transit and travel for a given appellant without facing undue hardship. [24] Language: English is the official language in Nigeria, and a large percentage of the population speak Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo (Ibo), and Fulani in the major centres, in addition to over 500 indigenous languages.23 The documents note that in public administration, English is the generally accepted language of federal agencies, both in correspondence and in oral communications, because of the wide variety of languages in the country.24 Fluency in one or more of these languages will mitigate against a finding of unreasonableness due to a language barrier in an IFA where an appellant speaks English or the regional languages of Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo (Ibo), and/or Fulani, as appropriate. [25] Education and Employment: While the documentary evidence notes that women face considerable economic discrimination in Nigeria, it also notes that women who are educated and who have a higher social status are more likely to gain employment, and that ethnicity is less of a factor for obtaining work in the South than it is in the North.25 It is worth noting that the total years of education completed on average for Nigerian men is nine years, whereas for women it is eight years.26 Thus, where an appellant has achieved post-secondary education or has meaningful work experience, they may be in a better position than the average Nigerian in terms of securing employment, where such opportunities exist. [26] Accommodation: The documentary evidence indicates that rent can be steep in locations like Ibadan, Port Harcourt and Lagos where the cost of living is high, increasing the challenges for female-headed households without male support to obtain housing.27 The personal circumstances of any particular appellant may make accommodation more or less viable, for instance, where they are able to access support of immediate or extended family or other social networks in or near the IFA who are sympathetic to the appellant's situation, as established by the evidence in any particular case. Access to accommodation is but one factor of several for decision-makers to consider in assessing the reasonableness of a proposed IFA in light of an appellant's individual circumstances. The burden remains on the appellant to demonstrate that the proposed IFA is unreasonable or unduly harsh in their particular case. [27] Religion: The documents indicate that across Nigeria "approximately 50 percent of the population is Muslim and 50 percent Christian," and that they reside in approximately equal numbers in central and southwestern Nigeria.28 Indeed, another source notes that "Muslims and Christians 'live everywhere across the country...'" and that when it comes to the issue of relocation of Christians from the North to large cities such as Port Harcourt in the South, "language and culture would be more important than religion."29 Therefore, when an appellant holds a meaningful affiliation to one of these religions, access to places of worship and other people who share their religious values may weigh in favour of an IFA in that it provides an avenue to establish or develop a social structure tied to the appellant's religious beliefs. [28] Indigeneship: Although the evidence is mixed, it is clear that due to significant migration to large, urban cities, indigeneship is not a significant barrier to relocation in these cities. Objective evidence provides information on point, which states: ...indigeneship status is less important in big cities such as Lagos, Abuja, and Port Harcourt than it is in other places, in terms of access to public jobs or ownership of land, because the indigene population in these areas has been "overwhelmed" by migrants to the cities. He explained, for example, that the establishment of the Federal Capital Territory pushed the indigenes of Abuja further from the "centre of influence." However, he also indicated that indigenous ethnic groups continue to dominate the market for land in Lagos, and that indigenes of the Niger Delta, including in Port Harcourt, have been demanding a greater allocation of jobs in the region's oil industry. Non-indigenes also face discrimination in the field of politics. Nevertheless, the Professor stated that, in other industries, they can generally find work where there is a demand for it.30 [citations omitted] [29] Notably, the source indicated that in other industries, there is a general ability to find work so long as there is demand, without ethnicity or indigeneship hindering this aspect of integration. Therefore, the burden is on an appellant to show that any discrimination that could be faced in Nigeria's large cities in the south on the basis of their ethnicity or non-indigeneship would rise to the level that it would render the proposed IFAs unreasonable or unduly harsh. [30] Availability of Medical and Mental Health Care: Where an appellant advances an argument about the availability of medical and mental health care, due attention will have to be given to whether availability and access to such care would render the proposed IFA unreasonable or unduly harsh in the appellant's particular circumstances. Documents in the National Documentation Package indicate that citizens must pay for services such as healthcare and education, although access to such services can be "difficult for all," in the sense that the difficulty may be affording healthcare and education.31 These difficulties appear to affect all Nigerians, and again, the burden is on the appellant to show that such considerations in their case would rise to a level that would render the proposed IFA objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in their particular circumstances. [31] It is settled law that the concept of an IFA is an inherent part of the Convention refugee definition because a claimant must be a refugee from a country, not from a particular region of a country.32 Thus, the existence of an IFA is fatal to any refugee claim.33 [32] The RPD found the facts and legal issues in this case sufficient similar to those in the IFA Jurisprudential Guide as it addresses IFA in major cities in south and central Nigeria for claimants fleeing non-state actors.34 [33] The Appellants argue that the Principal Appellant's family members and community elders, who are seeking to force the minor Appellants to undergo fortification rituals, are state actors and that the RPD erred in applying the IFA Jurisprudential Guide. I have considered the objective evidence referenced by the Appellants35 but I do not agree. [34] The Federal Court suggests that state actors are "those doing what the state tells them to."36 The Principal Appellant testified that the fortification ritual for a one-month-old male child involves drinking the blood of a lion, tiger and leopard three times a day for several days.37 The objective evidence is that "the police have been involved in investigating some traditional shrines in Yorubaland for some offences...if a ritual practice, such as human sacrifice or blood rituals, is public, the perpetrators will be arrested...locals generally do not accept ritual practices like human sacrifice and blood rituals."38 I find that the family members and community elders seeking to force the minor Appellants to undergo traditional rituals are not being directed by the government of Nigeria and are non-state actors. [35] I find that the RPD correctly applied the IFA Jurisprudential Guide to guide its IFA assessment and, as detailed below, that it clearly adjudicated this case on the basis of its particular facts. [36] The RPD correctly identified and considered the two-pronged IFA test39 and complied with the procedural requirements to raise IFA before or during the hearing. The RPD identified IFA as an issue at the outset of the hearing40 and later specified Lagos, Port Harcourt and Benin City and as potential IFAs.41 First prong of the IFA test: no serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA [37] With respect to the first prong of the IFA test the RPD found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Appellants' agents of persecution have the motivation and means to find and harm them in the proposed IFAs. Specifically, the RPD made the following findings: * There is no credible evidence that the agents of persecution have continued to search for the Appellant or asked about them since their departure from Nigeria; * The Principal Appellant's testimony about going into hiding after the alleged confrontation and assault in XXXX 2018 was embellished, inconsistent and contradictory; * The Appellants omitted any reference in the BOC to rituals performed on the youngest minor Appellant as an infant and the Principal Appellant's testimony was inconsistent and contradictory; * There is insufficient evidence credible evidence that the agents of persecution are able to leverage state machinery to find and harm the Appellants, or that they have influence over a national network of persons able and willing to do their bidding; and * There is no credible evidence that the Principal Appellant has any significant public profile in Nigeria as one of numerous princes belonging to a royal family from a community of approximately 3,000 in XXXX State. [38] While the RPD accepted that the fortification ritual was performed on the oldest minor Appellant and that he was hospitalized several months later, the RPD concluded, for the reasons outlined above, that there is no serious possibility of the Appellants being persecuted or, on a balance of probabilities, of being in danger of torture or at risk to life or cruel and usual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFAs. [39] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred when it failed to conduct proper section 96 and section 97 analyses by not making an inquiry into the nexus to a convention ground for persecution.42 I do not agree. The Federal Court of Appeal has clearly stated that there is no requirement to conduct a section 96 analysis as a prerequisite to the analysis of a viable IFA: Finally, I think that it is important to point out that the Federal Court of Appeal decided, in Kanagaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), ?1996] F.C.J. No. 75, that the RPD is not bound to determine whether a person's fear of persecution is well-founded within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA when it determines that there is an IFA: ¶3 The Trial Judge then found that the Board's decision respecting the IFA was proper and dismissed the motion. The Trial Judge, nevertheless, certified the following question for this Court: Is a determination of whether a claimant has a well founded fear of persecution in the area from which he or she originates a prerequisite to the consideration of an internal flight alternative? ¶4 The answer to this question is "NO". In assessing whether a viable IFA exists, the Board, of course, must have regard to all the appropriate circumstances. This was done in this case. Since an IFA existed, therefore, the claimant by definition could not have a well-founded fear of persecution in her country of nationality. Thus, while the Board may certainly do so if it chooses, there was no need as a matter of law for the Board to decide whether there was persecution in the area of origin as a prerequisite to the consideration of an IFA.43 [40] A very recent Federal Court decision confirms: The concept of an IFA is an inherent part of the definition of Convention refugee: see Valasquez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1201 at para 15. If it is objectively reasonable for a claimant to live elsewhere in their country of nationality without fear of persecution, the claimant is not a Convention refugee, even if they have a well-founded fear of persecution in another part of the country. Where the issue of an IFA is in play, a claimant must surmount a high threshold to demonstrate that a proposed IFA is unreasonable: see Ranganathan at paras 15-17.44 [41] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred in its credibility determination with respect to the inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence about the length of time the Appellants stayed in XXXX and the circumstances surrounding forced fortification ritual on the youngest minor Appellant because they were microscopic and not central to the claim. [42] Following my own review, I find that that the RPD did not err in its findings about omissions and inconsistencies in the evidence about the Appellants going into hiding in XXXX and the fortification ritual performed on the youngest minor Appellant as an infant. These are not, however, determinative findings with respect to the first prong of the IFA test. [43] The determinative RPD findings with respect to the first prong of the IFA test are that: there is no credible evidence that the agents of persecution have continued to search for the Appellant or asked about them since their departure from Nigeria; there is insufficient evidence credible evidence that the agents of persecution are able to leverage state machinery to find and harm the Appellants, or that they have influence over a national network of persons able and willing to do their bidding; and there is no credible evidence that the Principal Appellant has any significant public profile in Nigeria as one of numerous princes belonging to a royal family from a community of approximately 3,000 in XXXX State. [44] The Appellants do make any submissions about these findings. [45] When the RPD asked the Principal Appellant why the Appellants would be at risk in the proposed IFAs, he testified that he has family members in XXXX and his profile as a prince would make him stand out and he would easily be located there.45 When asked by his counsel whether the people after them could reach them in the suggested IFAs, the Principal Appellant testified that they could because they have the influence and resources to locate them. When asked by his counsel to clarify his answer, the Principal Appellant said one of them is a retired officer so he has the connections and resources to locate them.46 [46] Objective evidence about Nigeria's poor communications infrastructure,47 problems with the national police database48 and access to personal banking information49 does not support the Principal Appellant's testimony. [47] I have reviewed the documentary evidence presented by the Appellants, including the affidavit from the Principal Appellant?s brother,50 the background history of the Alare of Are Kingdom51 and the police report52 and it does not address the motivation and ability of the Principal Appellant's family or community elders to find the Appellants in the proposed IFAs in Port Harcourt or Benin City. I note that, according to the report, the police only advised the Principal Appellant "to relocate from his present house."53 [48] Following my review of the Principal Appellant's testimony, the Appellants' evidence and the objective evidence, as detailed above, I find that the Appellants have not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Principal Appellant's family and community elders have the motivation, reach or influence to continue looking for them or find them in Port Harcourt or Benin City. I find that the Appellants did not establish that they would be persecuted or risk harm from their agents of persecution if they relocated to Port Harcourt or Benin City. Second prong of the IFA test: it is not objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh for the Appellants to relocate to the proposed IFA [49] The issue is whether it would be reasonable, in all the Appellants' circumstances, for them to relocate to Port Harcourt or Benin City. The RPD considered characteristics of Port Harcourt and Benin City as very large, multiethnic and multilingual city as well as the personal circumstances of the Appellants. The RPD addressed the Appellants': age; ethnicity; religion; ability to speak English and Yoruba; education and work experience; barriers to accommodation, education and health and medical care in the IFAs; mental health and availability of treatment; and fear of crime and kidnapping. The RPD concluded that the Appellants did not demonstrate that it would be unreasonable to relocate to either of Port Harcourt or Benin City. [50] The Appellants argue that the RPD erred in finding that the Appellants have a viable IFA in Port Harcourt or Benin City because it failed to properly consider the emotional state of the adult Appellants and the psychological evidence presented. The Appellants also argue that the RPD did not engage in a discussion of the conditions in Port Harcourt and Benin City which would make relocation unreasonable-specifically, that the RPD did not consider the high cost of living in Port Harcourt, high rate of kidnappings, and discrimination towards non-indigenes. [51] As detailed below, I have considered the record, the RPD findings, the submissions of the Appellants and undertaken an assessment consistent with the framework set out in the IFA Jurisprudential Guide to conclude that the Appellants did not meet their high onus to demonstrate that relocating to Port Harcourt or Benin City would be unduly harsh or objectively unreasonable in their particular circumstances. While I recognize that the Appellants could face some hardship relocating to the proposed IFA, "the hardship associated with relocation is not the kind that renders an IFA unreasonable."54 [52] When the RPD asked the Principal Appellant why the Appellants would be at risk in the IFA, he said they would face adverse conditions because he would be seen as an outsider and life would be difficult because they would be seen as a minority ethnic group. Getting a new trade would be difficult and life is expensive because they would be starting from scratch. There would be a language barrier and there is a high rate of kidnapping.55 [53] Transportation and Travel: I find that the Appellants would be able to travel safely to Port Harcourt or Benin City stay there without facing undue hardship. Port Harcourt is serviced by an international airport and Benin City by a main domestic airport which would allow the Appellants to return directly.56 [54] Language: The adults Appellants testified and responded to questions in English without interpretation and they list their languages as English and Yoruba in their BOCs.57 The Appellants will not face language barriers in Port Harcourt or Benin City since English is the official language of Nigeria and 21% of the population of Nigeria is Yoruba.58 [55] Education and Employment: The Principal Appellant reports 18 years of education and a BSc in XXXX.59 The Principal Appellant lists nearly 11 years of work experience as a XXXX XXXX with XXXX XXXX.60 The Principal Appellant testified that in Canada he is working in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.61 The other adult Appellant reports 21.5 years of education and is a XXXX XXXX, a XXXX XXXX and has a bachelor's degree in XXXX.62 She has 8 years of work experience as a XXXX63 and the Principal Appellant testified that she is currently working in Canada as XXXX XXXX XXXX worker.64 [56] The Appellants quote objective evidence that it is "almost impossible" to obtain employment but they do not reference the sentence which follows their quote in same objective evidence which says, "it is difficult to find work unless one is a skilled worker, such a mechanic, and even then workers need to be clever and dynamic."65 I note that the both the adult Appellants are highly skilled and experienced professionals. [57] As referenced above, the average total years of education completed for Nigerian men is nine years and for women is eight years. Recognizing that it may be difficult for the average Nigerian to find a job due to economic conditions in Nigeria,66 I agree with the RPD and the IFA Jurisprudential Guide that the adult Appellants' education, work experience and English language skills puts them in a better position than the average Nigerian and weigh in their favour to find employment in Port Harcourt or Benin City. [58] Accommodation: The Appellants submit that "housing is very expensive." I agree with the RPD found that the Appellants did not demonstrate that they would face serious barriers to obtaining accommodation in Port Harcourt or Benin City beyond what is faced by all Nigerians. [59] Indigeneship: The Principal Appellant testified that life would be difficult because the Appellants would be seen as a minority ethnic group in Port Harcourt and Benin City. I have reviewed the objective evidence and note that it is mixed. One document says that non-indigenes "may face official and unofficial discrimination in accessing services in some states and may face difficulties in moving to another state without family connections or financial means."67 Another document, quoted by the Appellants, says there is discrimination but it also says "indigeneship status is less important in big cities such as Lagos, Abuja, and Port Harcourt than it is in other places, in terms of access to public jobs or ownership of land, because the indigene population in these areas has been 'overwhelmed' by migrants to the cities."68 [60] I find that while there is objective evidence that there are discriminatory practices against non-indigenes, there is also objective evidence that the discriminatory practices are less important in large urban centres like the proposed IFAs. I find that in the specific circumstances of the Appellants, given their language skills, extensive education and work experience, that the problem of indigeneship would not pose an obstacle to their relocation to the IFAs. The Appellants have not met their burden to show that any discrimination that could be faced in Port Harcourt or Benin City would rise to the level that it would render the proposed IFAs unreasonable or unduly harsh. [61] Religion: The Appellants are Christian. The objective evidence also says, as detailed above, that the Appellants will have access to places of worship and other people who share their religious values in Port Harcourt and Benin City where the Christian religion is widely practised.69 This could help facilitate their integration in the IFA. [62] Crime and kidnapping: The RPD noted the Appellants expressed a fear of crime and kidnapping but found that they have not demonstrated that they personally face a risk of falling victim to these problems in Port Harcourt or Benin City. I find that these are real issues which affect all Nigerians not just the Appellants. I agree with the RPD, however, that the Appellants have not met their burden to demonstrate that there is situation of generalized violence and incidence of kidnapping in Port Harcourt or Benin City of such severity that it would render the IFAs unreasonable. [63] Availability of mental health care: The Appellants argue that the RPD did not adequately consider the psychological evidence presented. I do not agree. The RPD noted that the adult Appellants each presented psychological assessment reports and were recommended to seek further treatment. The RPD found that the Appellants did not present corroborative evidence that they would be unable to obtain such treatment in Nigeria or that any inability to access such treatment would result in a threat to their safety.70 [64] The Appellants argue that the RPD's consideration of their psychological assessments was problematic because: it did not consider the contents of the report and the conclusions reached; it failed to consider that returning to Nigeria may result in a deterioration of their mental health and require significantly different treatment; and any requirement to provide corroborative evidence of their inability to access mental health is unreasonable. [65] I note that there is considerable recent Federal Court jurisprudence which specifically addresses the use of psychological evidence in refugee claims. A 2018 Federal Court decision summarizes that jurisprudence:71 The jurisprudence has cautioned that the recounting of events to a psychologist or a psychiatrist does not make these events more credible and that an expert report cannot confirm allegations made by a claimant. For example, in Rokni v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] FCJ No 182 (QL), 53 ACWS (3d) 371 (FCTD), and Danailov v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] FCJ No 1019 (QL), 44 ACWS (3d) 766 (FCTD), the Court noted that opinion evidence is only as valid as the truth of the facts upon which it is based. The same caution was noted by Justice Phelan in Saha v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 304 CanLII at para 16, 176 ACWS (3d) 499: "It is within the RPD's mandate to discount psychological evidence when the doctor merely regurgitates what the patient says are the reasons for his stress and then reaches a medical conclusion that the patient suffers stress because of those reasons." In Czesak v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), at paragraphs 37-40, 235 ACWS (3d) 1054, Justice Annis noted concerns about psychological reports that advocate in the guise of an opinion and "propose to settle important issues to be decided by the tribunal." Justice Annis found that in such cases, without some way to probe the opinion, little weight should be attached to it. The RAD is entitled to scrutinize psychological reports and discount opinions on the issues that it or the RPD, as the decision-maker, should make and to consider that the account provided by a refugee claimant to their psychologist or psychiatrist is their own account. [66] The psychological assessment indicates that the psychologist administered three self-reporting tests and one clinical interview. There is no indication of the length of the interview. On this basis the psychologist diagnosed both of the adult Appellants with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. No evidence was presented about any ongoing treatments or follow up to these diagnoses. [67] Following my review of the psychological assessment, I did not find that it addressed the issue of returning to Nigeria resulting in a deterioration of the Appellants' mental health and requiring significantly different treatment beyond the impact statements which simply recorded the accounts of the Appellants. [68] The burden of proof rests with the Appellants to establish that an IFA is not reasonable, which includes demonstrating that they would not have access to mental health treatment. I find that the Appellants did not meet their burden. [69] With respect to the second prong of the IFA test, I find that the Appellants did not demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that relocating to Port Harcourt or Benin City would be unduly harsh or objectively unreasonable in their particular circumstances. CONCLUSION [70] I find that the Appellants have a viable IFA in Port Harcourt or Benin City. I am satisfied that there is no serious possibility of the Appellants being persecuted or that they risk of harm, on a balance of probabilities, in Port Harcourt or Benin City and that it would not be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in all the circumstances for them to live in Port Harcourt or Benin City. [71] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) "Susan Brown" Susan Brown February 24, 2020 Date 1 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, pages 17-118. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII). 3 X (Re), 2018 CanLII 52123 (IFA Jurisprudential Guide). 4 Ibid. 5 Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1126 (CanLII), para. 7. 6 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 1 FC 706. 7 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1994 1 FC 589. 8 Doherty v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 661. 9 Dakpokpo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 580; Egbesola v. M.C.I., 2016 FC 204. See RAD decisions: X (Re), 2016 CanLII 105374 (CA IRB) and X (Re), 2015 CanLII 111326 (CA IRB). 10 Melford-Jowoh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 455. See RAD decision X (Re), 2016 CanLII 106181 (CA IRB). 11 Dibia v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2017 FC 1076. 12 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Nigeria, 29 March 2019, tab 16.2: United Kingdom. Home Office, Country Information and Guidance. Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0 (August 2016), page 5, section 2.2.2. 13 Ibid., tab 16.2, page 7, section 2.4.8. 14 Ibid., tab 16.2, page 5, section 2.2.2. 15 Reynoso, Edith Isabel Guardian v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2110-94), Muldoon, January 29, 1996. 16 Cadena Ramirez, Francisco Jose v. M.C.I., 2010 FC 1276. 17 Jilani, Zia Uddin Ahmed v. M.C.I., 2007 FC 1354, para. 13. 18 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164, paras. 15-16, citing Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589. 19 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Chairperson Guideline 4:Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 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 (Gender Guideline). 20 Ibid. 21 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Nigeria, 29 March 2019, tab 16.2, United Kingdom. Home Office, Country Information and Guidance. Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0 (August 2016). 22 Ibid., tab 16.2, page 9, section 6.3.1. 23 Ibid., tab 16.1, United States, Central Intelligence Agency, Nigeria. The World Factbook. (November 10, 2016), tab 16.5, L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde (July 4, 2017). 24 Ibid., tabs 16.1 and 16.5, Nigeria. L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde. Jacques Leclerc. 4 July 2017. 25 Ibid., tab 16.9, Whether women who head their own households, without male or family support, can obtain housing and employment in large northern cities, such as Kano, Maiduguri, and Kaduna, and southern cities, such as Lagos, Ibadan, Port Harcourt; government.... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 19 November 2012. NGA103907.E. 26 Ibid., tab 16.9. 27 Ibid., tab 16.9. 28 Ibid., tab 16.12, United States. Department of State, Nigeria. International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 (August 15, 2017), page 2. 29 Ibid., tab 16.13, Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA104679.E, Treatment of Christians who relocate from northern parts of Nigeria by people in Port Harcourt... (6 December 2013). 30 Ibid., tab 16.14, Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA104216.E, Whether a member of an ethnic group can be identified by physical characteristics, manner of dress, or by any other means... (20 November 2012), page 9, section 3.2. 31 Ibid., tab 16.13, Treatment of Christians who relocate from northern parts of Nigeria by people in Port Harcourt [Rivers State]; whether they face linguistic, economic and social difficulties (2012-November 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 6 December 2013. NGA104679.E. 32 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706. 33 Ousmer, Fazia Touileb v. M.C.I., 2012 FC 222, para. 24 citing Pena, Luis Arturo Rocha v. M.C.I., 2009 FC 616 and Lopez, Highlander Guzman v. M.C.I., 2010 FC 990. 34 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 7 and 8, RPD Reasons, para. 23. 35 RPD-1. RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 29 March 2019, tab 1.3: EASO COI Meeting Report: Nigeria. European Union. European Asylum Support Office. August 2017, page 80 and tab 10.8: Availability and effectiveness of state and police response in both urban and rural areas of southern Nigeria, for people who refuse to participate in ritual practices (2014-October 2016). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 14 November 2016. NGA105659.E. 36 Bushati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1538 (CanLII). 37 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of May 1, 2019, Audio Recording 0:50:00-0:51:29. 38 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 29 March 2019, tab 12.10: Prevalence of ritual practices, such as human sacrifice and the drinking of blood, upon initiation to chieftaincy or during chieftaincy in Yorubaland; state reaction to ritual practices in chieftaincy, especially the respective state ministries... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 5 November 2013. NGA104602.E. 39 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 6 and 7, RPD Reasons, paras. 17 and 18. 40 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of May 1, 2019, Audio Recording 0:06:00-0:06:25. 41 Ibid., Audio Recording 1:21:55-1:22:13. 42 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 22, Appellants' Memorandum, para. 10. 43 Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 709 (CanLII), para. 17 citing Kanagaratnam, Parameswary v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-356-94), Strayer, Linden, McDonald, January 17, 1996. Reported: Kanagaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1996), 36 Imm. L.R. (2d) 180 (F.C.A.) 44 Calle Henao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 84 (CanLII), para. 11. 45 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of May 1, 2019, Audio Recording 1:23:50-1:24:21. 46 Ibid., Audio Recording 1:40:15-1:41:25. 47 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 29 March 2019, tab 1.23: EASO Country of Origin Information Report. Nigeria: Key socio-economic indicators. European Union. European Asylum Support Office. November 2018. 48 Ibid., tab 10.4: Information on a national police computer network for information sharing; nature and extent of communication between police offices across the country; whether police offices in different states are obligated to report to each other regarding ... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 21 November 2017. NGA106000.E. 49 Ibid., tab 3.24: Requirements and procedures to obtain a Bank Verification Number (BVN) within the country and from abroad, including verification of identity and collection of biometrics during the registration process; uses of the BVN; instances of... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 10 May 2018. NGA106108.E. 50 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, page 187. 51 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, page 202. 52 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, page 208. 53 Ibid. 54 Okechukwu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1142 (CanLII). 55 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of May 1, 2019, Audio Recording 1:22:35-1:23:50. 56 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 29 March 2019, tab 1.7: Country Information and Guidance. Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. August 2016, section 6.3.1, page 9. 57 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, pages 18, 48, 72 and 96. 58 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 29 March 2019, tab 1.7, section 6.2.3, page 9. 59 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, Schedule A, page 132. 60 Ibid. 61 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of May 1, 2019, Audio Recording 0:10:27-0:12:00. 62 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, Schedule A, page 136. 63 Ibid. 64 RPD-1. RPD Record, Hearing of May 1, 2019, Audio Recording 0:12:55-0:14:10. 65 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 29 March 2019, tab 12.6: Treatment of Christians who relocate from northern parts of Nigeria by people in Port Harcourt [Rivers State]; whether they face linguistic, economic and social difficulties (2012-November 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 6 December 2013. NGA104679.E. 66 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 29 March 2019, tab 1.6: Nigeria. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 27 November 2018, pages 9-13. 67 Ibid., tab 1.7: Country Information and Guidance. Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. August 2016. 68 Ibid., tab 16.14, Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA104216.E, Whether a member of an ethnic group can be identified by physical characteristics, manner of dress, or by any other means... (20 November 2012), page 9, section 3.2. 69 Ibid., tab 16.12, United States. Department of State, Nigeria. International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 (August 15, 2017), page 2. 70 RPD-1, RPD Record,page 14, RPD Reasons, para. 57. 71 Iyere v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 67 (CanLII), paragraphs 47-49. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-04125 VB9-04126 / VB9-04127 / VB9-04128 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