TC2-22658

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-22658 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision November 16, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Tess Acton Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jerome Fanmi Olorunpomi Conseil de la personne 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] XXXX XXXX XXXX (Miss XXXX) is a citizen of Nigeria. If forced to return to Nigeria, she fears her relatives will force her to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM) or will kill her. Miss XXXX's relatives believe her failure to undergo FGM is causing tragedies in their community. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) refused Miss XXXX's claim for protection. The RPD found there was not a serious possibility Miss XXXX would face persecution in Nigeria. Miss XXXX challenges the RPD's decision and submits new evidence of escalating threats against her. [2] I allow the appeal. The RPD erred in assessing whether Miss XXXX faces a serious possibility of FGM and whether the effects of her fear amount to persecution. The admissible new evidence also establishes a serious possibility Miss XXXX's relatives will kill her. I find Miss XXXX faces a serious possibility of multiple forms of persecution by reason of her membership in a particular social group. I set aside the RPD's decision and substitute my own decision that Miss XXXX is a Convention1 refugee. [3] I considered and applied Chairperson Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues and Chairperson's Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board. 2 I decided this claim as quickly as possible because it is in Miss XXXX's best interests to receive a timely decision. Miss XXXX's sister remains her designated representative pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules.3 [4] The Minister did not intervene before the RPD or the Refugee Appeal Division and is therefore not a party to this appeal. However, I considered whether I had to give notice to the Minister pursuant to Alazar.4 I find notice is not required because the grounds on which I am deciding the appeal are not "legally and factually distinct from the grounds of appeal advanced."5 All of the issues I am addressing in this appeal were decided by the RPD or raised on appeal. The Minister is aware of the RPD's findings, the new evidence, and the submissions because the RPD Record and Appellant's Record were both provided to the Minister.6 BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS [5] Miss XXXX is a 12-year-old girl from XXXX, Ogun state, Nigeria. She came to Canada in XXXX 2021 with her father to visit one of her sisters, who is a Canadian permanent resident. During the visit, Miss XXXX's father learned their community's chief priest required Miss XXXX to undergo FGM. The chief priest and other relatives blamed recent tragedies on the fact that Miss XXXX had not undergone FGM. FGM is their community's tradition. Although Miss XXXX's older sisters underwent FGM, her mother and father now oppose FGM. [6] In XXXX 2021, Miss XXXX's father returned to Nigeria without Miss XXXX. He tried to reason with the chief priest and relatives, but they insisted Miss XXXX was required to undergo FGM. Relatives visited the family's home in XXXX 2021, telling her father that if he did not produce Miss XXXX, they would search for her themselves. Her father reported this incident to the police, but the police advised the family to resolve the dispute themselves. Miss XXXX's father was in an accident in XXXX 2022 and her mother's shop was burned in XXXX 2022. The relatives say these misfortunes happened because of the refusal to produce Miss XXXX for FGM. Miss XXXX made her claim for protection in March 2022. The relatives made further inquiries about Miss XXXX in XXXX 2022. [7] In XXXX 2022, the relatives threatened that if further tragedies happened because of the failure to produce Miss XXXX for FGM, they would kill her. A few days later, the relatives searched the family home looking for Miss XXXX. Miss XXXX's father reported these events to the police, but the police again advised the family to resolve this matter themselves. Near the end of XXXX 2022, the son of the head of the family died. The relatives blame his death on the failure to have Miss XXXX undergo FGM. They have repeated their threats to kill Miss XXXX. NEW EVIDENCE AND ORAL HEARING [8] Section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act7 (IRPA) states an appellant may only present evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim, that was not reasonably available, or that could not reasonably have been expected to be presented at the time of the rejection. The evidence must also be new, relevant, and credible.8 [9] Miss XXXX submitted the following new evidence with her appeal: i. Affidavit of her father, sworn XXXX XXXX, 2022; ii. Police report regarding events on XXXX XXXX, 2022, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022; iii. Police report regarding events on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2022, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022; iv. Medical report, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022; v. Prescription for her father, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022; vi. WhatsApp messages between her father and an uncle, sent and received XXXX XXXX, 2022; vii. WhatsApp messages between her father and a relative, sent and received between XXXX XXXX and XXXX, 2022; viii. Affidavit of her designated representative, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022; ix. Letter from a paediatric doctor in Canada, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022; x. XXXX XXXX report, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022; xi. Letter from Member of Parliament, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022; xii. Letter from a second Member of Parliament, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022. Documents (a) to (j) admitted [10] I admit the documents listed at (a) to (j) as new evidence. [11] The documents meet the criteria in section 110(4) of the IRPA. The majority of the evidence describes events that happened after the RPD decision and clearly arose after the RPD decision. Some of the events described in documents (a), (b), (d), and (e) happened on XXXX XXXX and XXXX, 2022, a few days before the RPD decision dated August 8, 2022. The Affidavit of her designated representative explains that Miss XXXX and the designated representative only learned of these events from their father on XXXX XXXX, 2022. I find this explanation credible as it is consistent with testimony about the frequency of communication with their father and how he discloses news to them. I therefore find the evidence about events on XXXX XXXX and XXXX, 2022 was not reasonably available at the time of the RPD decision. [12] The documents are also new, relevant, and credible. The documents are new as they describe facts that were unknown at the time of the RPD decision. Documents (a) to (h) provide evidence about further threats against Miss XXXX and her father's efforts to resolve these threats, which is relevant to the well-foundedness of her claim and whether there is state protection. Documents (h), (i), and (j) provide evidence about Miss XXXX's mental health, which is relevant to the well-foundedness of her claim and internal flight alternative (IFA). [13] I find the documents are credible as to their source and circumstance. The events described in documents (a) to (h) are consistent with the pattern of threats against Miss XXXX. The timing of the further threats does not cause me to doubt their credibility because it is an evolving situation that began just one year ago. Miss XXXX's relatives believe her refusal to undergo FGM is causing tragedies in their community and now threaten to kill her if further tragedies happen. After the death of the head of the family's son, they repeated this threat. The father's affidavit evidence of these events is also corroborated by other submitted new evidence: copies of WhatsApp messages showing threats, two police reports, and medical evidence. The evidence about Miss XXXX's mental health in documents (h), (i), and (j) are from credible sources. Miss XXXX lives with her designated representative, so her designated representative directly saw the described behaviour. The two medical reports are credible as they were prepared by a paediatric doctor and a registered XXXX, both of whom met with Miss XXXX about her health. Documents (k) and (l) not admitted [14] I do not admit the letters from the Members of Parliament as new evidence. [15] These letters are not relevant to the issues on appeal. The letters are addressed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. They detail how the Members of Parliament are aware of Miss XXXX's situation, support her, and urge the Minister and the Immigration and Refugee Board to grant Miss XXXX protection. While I commend the Members of Parliament for supporting a constituent, their support is not relevant to the determination of whether Miss XXXX is a Convention refugee. No oral hearing required [16] Miss XXXX requested an oral hearing. My jurisdiction to hold an oral hearing is limited: there must be admissible new evidence that raises a serious issue with the appellant's credibility, is central, and is determinative.9 [17] I dismiss the request for an oral hearing. The new evidence does not raise a serious issue with Miss XXXX's credibility. The evidence about the events that happened after the RPD decision is credible. The new events in Nigeria are consistent with the pattern of threats against Miss XXXX. As explained below, I also find Miss XXXX faces a serious possibility of FGM and other child-specific persecution. Therefore, even if these new events had not happened, I would have found Miss XXXX is a Convention refugee. The new evidence is therefore not central or determinative. ANALYSIS [18] My role is to review whether the RPD made the correct decision. I will conduct an independent assessment to decide Miss XXXX's claim for protection.10 Miss XXXX has established her allegations, on a balance of probabilities [19] I agree with the RPD that Miss XXXX's personal and national identity is established through the copies of her current and previous Nigerian passports. [20] I also agree with the RPD that Miss XXXX established the allegations made at the RPD, on a balance of probabilities. The designated representative gave consistent testimony about Miss XXXX's situation. She answered questions directly and with detail. There were no inconsistencies or omissions between the designated representative's testimony and the Basis of Claim form and documents. The numerous documents submitted to the RPD are credible and corroborate the allegations. [21] I find Miss XXXX has established the allegations in the new evidence, on a balance of probabilities. The events of XXXX 2022 are consistent with the pattern of threats against Miss XXXX. The timing of the further threats does not cause me to doubt their credibility because it is an evolving situation that began just one year ago. The allegations are confirmed in multiple documents, including affidavits from Miss XXXX's father and designated representative, copies of WhatsApp messages, and two police reports. Evidence about Miss XXXX's mental health is confirmed by credible medical evidence. Nexus to a Convention ground [22] Miss XXXX's claim has a nexus to the Convention ground through her membership in a particular social group, as a young girl. Miss XXXX's relatives have targeted her for FGM because of her age and gender. The practice of FGM is specific to women and girls due to these innate or immutable characteristics. The death threats are also connected to Miss XXXX's age and gender because they are a further consequence of her refusal to undergo FGM. Miss XXXX has a well-founded fear of persecution Fear of FGM and being killed is well-founded [23] The RPD found Miss XXXX does not face a serious possibility of FGM, largely because her parents do not consent to FGM. Miss XXXX challenges the RPD's finding. [24] The RPD erred in finding Miss XXXX does not face a serious possibility of FGM. It erred by misapprehending country evidence and the evidence about Miss XXXX's relatives. I find Miss XXXX faces a serious possibility of FGM. [25] The RPD overlooked important evidence about the prevalence and practices regarding FGM in Nigeria. Forcible infliction of FGM by extended family members does occur in Nigeria, even if it is not the usual situation.11 Although the Australian DFAT Country Information Report: Nigeria, relied upon by the RPD, states there are no reports that FGM occurred without parental consent,12 this is contradicted by other country evidence.13 The same DFAT report also emphasizes the underreporting of FGM.14 Importantly, the country evidence highlights the variation amongst FGM practices in different communities in Nigeria.15 Miss XXXX's credible evidence establishes FGM is a tradition amongst her relatives and community. Her family previously adhered to this tradition, as her older sisters underwent FGM after their births. The evidence also establishes her relatives have continued to insist Miss XXXX undergo FGM, even though her parents do not consent. The relatives' insistence is grounded in their belief that Miss XXXX's refusal of FGM is responsible for tragedies in their community. I find it likely that in Miss XXXX's community, the consent of the parents is not determinative as to whether a child will undergo FGM. [26] Further, Miss XXXX submitted evidence about a relative, also a 12-year-old girl, who died from FGM after her family were pressured by the same relatives.16 The RPD discounted this evidence because the designated representative did not have details about whether that girl's father agreed to FGM. However, I find this evidence highly probative. It demonstrates the same relatives who are threatening Miss XXXX have carried out FGM on another young girl against the non-consent of at least one parent. It also demonstrates the relatives' persistence to perform FGM even though it is illegal. [27] Additionally, based on the new evidence submitted on appeal, I find Miss XXXX faces a serious possibility of being killed by her relatives for her refusal to undergo FGM. The threats against Miss XXXX have continued and escalated since the RPD hearing. The relatives threatened that if further tragedies happened in their community, they would kill Miss XXXX. The son of the head of the family passed away in late XXXX 2022. The head of the family blames his son's death on Miss XXXX's refusal to undergo FGM. The relatives have made this death threat to Miss XXXX's father several times. Child-specific persecution is well-founded [28] The RPD found the effects arising from Miss XXXX's fear of FGM was not persecution. Miss XXXX challenges this finding. [29] The RPD erred by failing to consider children's distinctive rights when assessing whether the effects from Miss XXXX's fear is persecution. I find the effects of Miss XXXX's fear, which arise from credible threats of gender-based violence, is persecution for a 12-year-old child. There is a serious possibility Miss XXXX would face this child-specific persecution if returned to Nigeria. [30] Miss XXXX is aware of the threats of FGM. She is fearful and believes she will die if forced to return to Nigeria. Her designated representative testified Miss XXXX has been deeply affected by these threats. She testified Miss XXXX has made comments about "taking something" to prevent her return to Nigeria.17 She has observed negative changes in Miss XXXX's appetite, sleep, and engagement in school and activities. She also testified that because many relatives support Miss XXXX undergoing FGM, her parents are unsure who to trust. She explained Miss XXXX's attendance at school and activities would therefore be affected if she returned to Nigeria. The medical evidence confirms the negative effects the threats have had on Miss XXXX's mental health.18 Miss XXXX has been diagnosed with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [31] In assessing whether these effects are persecution, I am guided by Canadian jurisprudence recognizing children have distinctive rights protected by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and these rights influence the assessment of persecution.19 Both the Federal Court and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees state that children can be persecuted in ways that may not be persecution for adults.20 [32] I find if Miss XXXX were forced to return to Nigeria, she would live with constant fear for her personal safety because of the threats against her. In Canada, this fear has already negatively impacted her health, family relationships, education, and recreation. I find Miss XXXX's fear would have the same or worse effects in Nigeria, where the source of her fear is closer and more imminent. I find her mental health would continue to be negatively affected. Miss XXXX's fear would limit her ability to associate with her family members, to attend school, and engage in recreational activities with friends. All of these effects are contrary to rights protected by the Convention on the Rights of the Child.21 [33] I find these effects are persecution for a 12-year-old child. Miss XXXX's right to health, family relationships, education, and recreation are necessary for her development and inherent to her dignity as a child. The identified effects would be sustained violations of her human rights as recognized by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and would threaten these rights in a fundamental way.22 No state protection [34] The RPD raised the issue of state protection at the hearing. Miss XXXX submits there is not adequate state protection. I agree. Both Miss XXXX's circumstances and the country evidence establishes there is not adequate state protection. [35] Miss XXXX's father repeatedly reported the threats against Miss XXXX to police. Each time, the police refused to intervene and advised him to settle the family matter amicably. This police response is consistent with country evidence. There have been no prosecutions under the country's anti-FGM laws.23 Nigeria's National Human Rights Commission indicates gender-based violence matters "are perpetrated with impunity and few of the perpetrators are held accountable for the abuse."24 The Nigerian government states where abuses are reported, "the police or relevant authorities maintain a 'non-interference' approach in order to not be seen as responsible for causing family problems."25 [36] Additionally, since the state cannot adequately protect Miss XXXX from the threats of gender-based violence, her fear and its effects will remain. The state therefore cannot adequately protect Miss XXXX from the child-specific persecution arising from the credible threats of gender-based violence. No internal flight alternative [37] The RPD did not propose an internal flight alternative (IFA) at the hearing. Miss XXXX submits her circumstances establish she does not have an IFA. [38] There is a two-part test to determine if there is an IFA. The IFA must be safe and it must be reasonable. An IFA is safe if there is no serious possibility of persecution and no likely risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or torture. In assessing safety, the agent of persecution's motivation and means to find the appellant are considered. An IFA is reasonable if conditions are not unduly harsh and do not jeopardize the life and safety of the appellant. [39] It is unclear whether Miss XXXX's parents would relocate with her or whether she would live with relatives in another city, as mentioned by her designated representative during the hearing. Given Miss XXXX's young age and her parent's support, I find it unlikely she would relocate alone. However, in any of these situations, I find Miss XXXX's relatives have the motivation and means to locate her throughout Nigeria. [40] I find the relatives have the motivation to pursue Miss XXXX. Two years ago, these same relatives forced another 12-year-old girl to undergo FGM. The relatives threatened that Miss XXXX must undergo FGM to stop tragedies from happening in their community. More recently, the relatives threatened to kill Miss XXXX because they believe her refusal to undergo FGM is responsible for the death of the son of the head of the family. The basis for this persecution, which is Miss XXXX's gender, age, and the relatives' belief she is causing harm to the community, is ongoing. It has intensified after the death of the son of the head of the family. [41] I also find the relatives have the means to locate Miss XXXX. In any living arrangement, the relatives have the means to locate Miss XXXX through other relatives. The designated representative testified that her parents are unsure what relatives to trust. She also testified that numerous relatives, both supportive and non-supportive, have contacted her parents to discuss the decision to refuse FGM. I therefore find that to live safely elsewhere in Nigeria, Miss XXXX and her family would not be able to reveal Miss XXXX's location to any relatives, even those who appear to support the decision to refuse FGM. The Federal Court is clear that a person cannot be expected to hide their location from family to avoid persecution26 because such a requirement is equivalent to living in hiding.27 The designated representative also credibly testified about the wide network her relatives have in numerous cities in Nigeria because their grandfather had polygamous marriages.28 This would further enable the relatives to locate Miss XXXX. [42] Additionally, the effects of Miss XXXX's fear, which I have found is child-specific persecution, would exist throughout Nigeria. [43] I find Miss XXXX faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Nigeria. It is therefore not necessary for me to consider the second part of the IFA test. CONCLUSION [44] I allow the appeal. I substitute my own decision that Miss XXXX is a Convention refugee. (signed) Tess Acton Tess Acton November 16, 2022 Date 1 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva, 28 July 1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, at p. 137 and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, New York, 31 January 1967, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 606, at p. 267; accession of Canada to both on 4 June 1969. 2 Chairperson's Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, September 30, 1996; Chairperson's Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board, Effective July 18, 2022. 3 Refugee Appeal Division Rules (RAD Rules), SOR/2012-257, Rule 23(1). 4 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Alazar, 2021 FC 637. 5 Ibid., at para. 84. 6 RAD Rules, Rule 21(4) and Rule 3(2). 7 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, section 110(4). 8 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96, [2016] 4 FCR 230. 9 IRPA, section 110(6). 10 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] 4 FCR 157; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, [2019] 2 FCR 597. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, National Document Package (NDP) for Nigeria, (June 30, 2022), item 5.16, Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Version 2.0., United Kingdom. Home Office.; item 5.39, Update to NGA200625 on prevalence of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), including ethnic groups in which FGM/C is prevalent; ability of parents to refuse FGM/C for their daughter; consequences for refusal; state protection and support...., Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.; item 5.25, Nigeria : Les mutilations génitales féminines (MGF)., Belgium. Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons.; item 5.13, Whether Yoruba and Ibo cleansing rituals for women in their thirties include circumcision in the states of Ogun, Niger, Anambra, and Adamawa; whether women who have been accused of killing a family member through witchcraft would be circumcised...., Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.; item 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. 12 Ibid., item 1.8, DFAT Country Information Report: Nigeria., Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade., at page 38. 13 Ibid., item 5.16, Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Version 2.0., United Kingdom. Home Office.; item 5.39, Update to NGA200625 on prevalence of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), including ethnic groups in which FGM/C is prevalent; ability of parents to refuse FGM/C for their daughter; consequences for refusal; state protection and support...., Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.; item 5.25, Nigeria : Les mutilations génitales féminines (MGF)., Belgium. Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons.; item 5.13, Whether Yoruba and Ibo cleansing rituals for women in their thirties include circumcision in the states of Ogun, Niger, Anambra, and Adamawa; whether women who have been accused of killing a family member through witchcraft would be circumcised...., Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.; item 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 Ibid., item 1.8, DFAT Country Information Report: Nigeria., Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade., at page 38. This is consistent with the under-reporting of many forms of gender-based violence, for reasons such as stigmatization or the belief that these are private matters; see Chairperson's Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board, section 11.4. 15 Ibid., item 5.16, Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Version 2.0., United Kingdom. Home Office.; item 5.39, Update to NGA200625 on prevalence of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), including ethnic groups in which FGM/C is prevalent; ability of parents to refuse FGM/C for their daughter; consequences for refusal; state protection and support...., Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pages 179-182. 17 RPD Hearing Audio Recording (August 3, 2022), recording 2 of 2, at approx. 00:13:15 and 00:15:41. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pages 167, 185, and 188-190; Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at page 35-43. 19 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, para 114; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817, paras 69-71; Kim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 149, para 51, 73; De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 436, paras. 73, 87. 20 Kim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 149, paras. 57-61; Guidelines on International Protection No. 8: Child Asylum Claims under Articles 1(A)2 and 1(F) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, refworld, https://www.refworld.org/docid/4b2f4f6d2.html. 21 UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, Articles 24, 16, 28, 31. 22 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85; see also Chan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 593, at 635 (La Forest J dissent, although the majority of the Court decided the case on other grounds and did not rule explicitly on this issue). Kim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 149, para 51. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, NDP for Nigeria, (June 30, 2022), item 5.49, Sexual and gender-based violence/harmful traditional practices against women and girls across Nigeria., National Human Rights Commission, item 5.39, Update to NGA200625 on prevalence of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), including ethnic groups in which FGM/C is prevalent; ability of parents to refuse FGM/C for their daughter; consequences for refusal; state protection and support ...., Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada., at page 16. 24 Ibid., at page 9. 25 Ibid., item 5.49, Sexual and gender-based violence/harmful traditional practices against women and girls across Nigeria., National Human Rights Commission., at page 9. 26 A.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 915, at paras. 20-22; Ali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 93, at paras. 48-50; Zamora Huerta v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 586, para. 29. 27 Zamora Huerta v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 586, para 29. 28 RPD Hearing Audio Recording (August 3, 2022), recording 1 of 2, at approx 1:05:00. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-22658 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français