TC0-10304

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-10304 TC0-10305 / TC0-10306 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 Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 26, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Julie Ryan Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Bolanle Olusina (Sina) Ogunleye 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] XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant), XXXX XXXX XXXX (Associate Appellant), and XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor Appellant) appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting their claims for refugee protection on August 19, 2020. The Principal Appellant (PA) fears the negative outcome from the effect of his family pressure on his wife and son to accede to the demands of his tribal elders. The Appellants are citizens of Nigeria. The Appellants fear the PA's community pressure for the Associate Appellant (AA) to undergo circumcision (Female Genital Mutilation - FGM) and the minor Appellant to submit to ritual scarring as did his father. The AA and minor Appellant alleged persecution as a member of a particular social group - woman and family. The PA's alleged persecution was also assessed on the basis as a member of a particular social group (family). He also argued that his change in circumstances, the fact that he suffered a heart attack and now requires medication, ongoing assessment, and an ICD, which renders him in need of protection. The determinative issues for the RPD were credibility, state protection, and internal flight alternative (IFA). The RPD also considered the sur place claim to protection under section 97(1). [2] The Appellants submit new evidence in support of their claims but do not request an oral hearing. They also ask that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) allow the appeal by substituting the negative decision with a positive one. The Appellants challenged the three findings of the RPD: that their subjective fear was not credible; the Appellants could avail themselves of state protection; and there is a viable IFA in the Appellants' circumstances. Although the determinative issue for me was IFA, I addressed all the Appellants arguments at appeal as raised to find the RPD was correct in their findings for the reasons below. DECISION [3] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. ROLE OF THE RAD [4] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 BACKGROUND [5] The PA was born into the Balogun Family and as a child he was chosen by an oracle to be ritually scarred, which was the family tradition. In November 2013, the PA and AA were married. He alleges that his family began pressuring him and his wife, the AA, for her to undergo FGM which they resisted by telling the family that she had in fact undergone the procedure already. In 2014 the PA and his father attended a meeting of family elders and was told that his son, the minor Appellant born in 2013, would have to submit to ritual scarring, which his parents objected to. Once, the PA went to the police with his concern about the circumcision and ritual scarring requests and was told that such matters were family issues whereby the police do not interfere. Since then, the PA's family have been trying to persuade him to accede to their demands. The Appellants moved within Lagos at some point. Despite the move, in 2017, the PA claims his family elders attended his new home in Lagos demanding that his then-pregnant wife be checked to see if she was really circumcised and if not to have it done before the child was born. Fearing a negative outcome from the effect of the pressure on his wife, the PA made plans to move his family from the reach of the elders by obtaining visas to the United States (US) and then fleeing from the US to Canada. [6] Subsequent to coming to Canada, the AA delivered their second child. In addition, the PA suffered a heart attack and as a consequence has been taking medication and had an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) implanted. The PA has regular follow-ups with medical specialists in Canada since having his ICD. APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS [7] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred in their decision because it is unsupported by the evidence that was before it. NEW EVIDENCE The evidence presented by the Appellants is not admissible [8] The Appellants submit the following evidence to the RAD with their memorandum: a) Affidavit of the PA dated September 28, 2020;2 and b) Medical consultation report from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX- XXXX XXXX XXXX dated February 3, 2020.3 [9] The Appellants submit that this evidence, particularly document b), meets the requirements of section 110(4)4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the Raza/Singh factors.5 The Appellants acknowledge that there was evidence before the RPD that the PA suffered a heart attack and as a consequence has been taking medication and had an ICD implanted, the RPD found that it considered the two reports before them and concluded that services for patients like the PA are available in Nigeria either through the tertiary government-owned or private hospitals. The Appellants, however, submit that the RPD finding is contrary to the information about the ICD model implanted in the PA which is not available in Nigeria and its diagnostics or maintenance is not possible and that "there is a lack of well-structured emergency services in" either Abuja or Port Harcourt. Following the RPD decision, the PA decided to go to his family doctor on September 4, 2020, as is declared in his sworn affidavit referred to in document a). Furthermore, the Appellants submit that they were not advised that they were required to adduce evidence to establish the role pre-hospital emergency treatment played when the Appellant first suffered a heart attack. On that point, document b) establishes that the arrival of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) about five minutes thereafter, to resuscitate and take him to the emergency to the Cardiac catheterization lab at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was critical to his survival. [10] According to the law,6 I can only accept evidence that: arose after the RPD decision; or was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or that the Appellants could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.7 I will therefore assess the documents accordingly. [11] The elements of section 110(4) are not met. Document a) is new and postdates the RPD rejection of the claim, however, the evidence which this document supports is not new. While I normally do not include an affidavit like document a) as new evidence, in this case given it explains why and when document b) was obtained I find it appropriate to include and assess it for the purposes of the law. [12] Document a) submits through an affidavit that the PA obtained the February 3, 2020, medical consultation when he went to his family doctor and was given a copy. The fact that the PA only obtained it on September 4, 2020, does not make it unavailable to him well before that date or demonstrate to me that he could not have reasonably obtained it before he did. [13] Document b) predates the RPD decision, it was obtained by the Appellant after the RPD decision. Document b) refers to a medical appointment in Canada that took place after the RPD hearing of November 6, 2019, and before the RPD decision of August 19, 2020. It provides a summary of the PA's medical history given the nature of the appointment, a follow-up consultation with the PA's biggest concern of returning to driving. [14] I have however considered the argument that they were not advised that they were required to adduce evidence to establish the role of how pre-hospital emergency treatment played. Document b) provides a brief summary of the EMS involvement on July 15, 2019, the day he had collapsed. The RPD gave the Appellants opportunity to file a late disclosure regarding the availability of medical treatment and cost of medical treatment. The Appellants' asked for a two-week accommodation to provide such documents which the RPD granted. It is not the RPD's burden to make the case for the Appellants or to decide what documents should be before them. The RPD was fair to the Appellants and they chose to file the post-hearing evidence they did. [15] The Appellants were given reasonable expectations to have presented the evidence they wanted the RPD to consider. The RPD gave the Appellants the opportunity to file post hearing disclosure regarding the evidence to substantiate the PA's oral testimony about the lack of available medical care in Nigeria considering the ICD. [16] The RPD did not make any finding on the pre-hospital emergency treatment played rather the RPD found that the limitations on the Nigerian healthcare system appear to affect all Nigerians, that it is a general situation faced by all. The PA himself went to the medical appointment in February 2020 and therefore it was reasonable for him to have known a medical report would have existed. The Appellants were represented by counsel who demonstrated the knowledge of the RPD Rules during their hearing. I further find that the Appellants could have reasonably expected to have provided evidence that could have impacted the RPD's decision even post hearing as the Rules allow for. For these reasons, documents a) and b) are not admissible pursuant to subsection 110(4). ANALYSIS [17] I have listened to the recording of the testimonies of both the PA and AA and considered all the documentary evidence before me to conduct an independent assessment of the claims, considering the arguments of appeal. Credibility [18] The RPD found the Appellants allegations of subjective fear was not credible because it was not satisfied that the adult claimants lack agency in respect of the demands made against them. [19] The Appellants submit that the RPD failed to properly take into consideration the threat by the PA's family that the rituals performed before then-pregnant AA's child and their legitimate fear that the family could kidnap the AA and minor Appellant to enforce the performance of the rituals. [20] The AAs' narrative refers to the following: "4. In 2017, they sent some elders to my new house we moved to in Ketu, Lagos. At this time knowing my wife is pregnant and we are having a new baby, after much argument the elders left telling me that I must present my child before the new baby comes in, also told my wife that she should come down that they need to check if truly she's been circumcised and if it is properly done before she can deliver the baby. 5. Having been put under so much pressure, and at this time my wife has been going through some a lot about the issue on ground psychologically, the fear and effect of the negative impact on her due to what the situation might have on her and the pregnancy. I started plans and moves to change location to take my family away from where they can reach us because of the fear that a day will come they will have to take them by force. It was at this point I obtained passports for my son and I since my wife has one, for us to travel out of the country. Knowing fully well that we could be found in any part of the country if we relocate, we decided to leave the country before the next birthday of my first son and the delivery of my unborn child".8 [21] The AA testified that they felt pressure by his family in 2017 to bring his son and wife to the elders as requested. He also said they obtained visitors visas to the US for them to go for a family visit. The AA and PA also confirmed on the record that the RPD could rely on the narrative as sworn testimony.9 The PA also said she feared being kidnapped by the AA's family. The PA and AA both agreed that kidnapping is against the law in Nigeria and that there was no evidence of kidnapping to force tribal rituals. [22] The narrative and their oral evidence are vague about when the elders came to his new house in Lagos, and when the Appellants proceeded to get the minor son a passport and apply for visas to the US. The evidence regarding the summary of events in 2017 are as follows: * Sometime in 2017 the elders find the Appellants at their new home in Ketu, Lagos.10 * It was at the point that the elders came to their new home with their demands to bring the AA and son to comply with the traditional rituals that the minor Appellant's passport was applied for.11 The minor Appellant's Nigerian passport was issued on 18 August 2017,12 as was the PA's Nigerian passport.13 * The visas to the US were issued to the PA and AA on October 24, 2017, by the US Embassy in Lagos, Nigeria.14 * The Appellants arrived in the US on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017.15 [23] The RPD considered these facts as seen in paragraphs 7, 8, 9 of its decision and further did not find this evidence amounted to a credible subjective fear as seen in its paragraphs 15 through 19 of its decision. I agree with the RPD that the Appellants' evidence does not amount to credible subjective fear, the testimony regarding kidnapping is speculative and the Appellants have not succumbed to the pressure coming from the rural elders of Ugan State for several years or why they could not withstand that pressure again. Furthermore, the RPD considered all the evidence before it, including the prevalence of FGM within their extended families and learnt that no female relatives on either side have been subjected to FGM and that it is only the PA that has undergone ritual scarring. I add that the PA agreed that his parents consented to his ritual scarring. The RPD correctly found that the Appellants' subjective fear was not credible. State protection [24] The RPD found that the Appellants can avail themselves of the state protection of the Nigerian State and that the actions they took to test the willingness to protect them was inadequate based on the objective evidence found regarding the Violence Against Person (Prohibition) Act (VAPP) (2015) and quoted parts of the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria to support that finding. [25] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred because the VAPP Act 2015 is a federal legislation that is only applicable in the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja and has not adequately been enforced. They further submit that there is no evidence before the RPD that it has been re-enacted by Rivers State, where Port Harcourt is located. Nigeria is a federation and federal statutes are not applicable in state until re-enacted by the states. They further submit that the RPD citation and quotes in paragraphs 24, 25, 27 and 28 - excerpts of the NDP for Nigeria - cumulatively contradicted its finding that adequate state protection is available to the Appellants in Nigeria. They submit that the RPD erred when it conflated the enactment of a protective law with enforcement. As such, there is no evidence whatsoever of the adequate enforcement of the law cited by the RPD. Lastly, the Appellants submit that the RPD finding at paragraph 29 is unsupported by the evidence before it. [26] The PA's testimony was properly reflected by the RPD reasons and I adopt the summary of the PA's testimony as outlined in paragraph 2316 of the RPD decision. The PA agreed with the RPD that they were told by colleagues that when traditional community issues are involved the police won't be able to protect the community or they might not want to.17 He also moved to another house in Lagos and did not give his address to any of his family until news got back to them and a cousin came to confirm where their new house was located. [27] Based on the PA's testimony, the Appellant has only gone once to the police to express the risk of harm because of the demands of his community elders. According to the narrative18 and testimony, the police told him these were traditional matters, and they would not get involved. The Appellants have demonstrated that since the initial approach to the police in 2014, in their first neighbourhood of Lagos, they made no other attempts to seek protection from the police or Nigerian authorities. I do not find the Appellants made sufficient efforts to see protection in Nigeria. [28] As it relates to the VAPP, I also find the RPD correctly outlined the law in Nigeria related to harmful traditional practices in Nigeria and the Appellants did not take actions to test the willingness to get protection to demonstrate the protection available to them was inadequate based on the objective evidence. The NDP section 10.8 does support that Nigerian police "has started collaborating with other government agencies, state governments and women's advocacy groups to improve its response and attitude to harmful ritual practices including establishing [a] Gender Unit at...[the] police command".19 The objective evidence also states that whether the police provide protection also depends on who brings the case; if it is someone more influential, with more education, connections and financial resources, then the police might be more likely to provide protection (ibid.). The objective evidence also points to the reluctance to provide protection to someone who is refusing to undergo a ritual and that some information suggests that the police can have very limited capacity to intervene. In the present case, I find the Appellants made one attempt to seek police protection in the old neighbourhood of Lagos. They did not demonstrate any other attempts to report a risk of harm in their neighbourhood of Ketu, Lagos in 2017 when they were approached again by the PA's elders. There is no evidence before me to suggest this would be the same police department that the PA alleges, he reported his family's unwillingness to participate in traditional rituals. The Appellant has also not demonstrated any other attempts to report a risk of harm to any other level of Nigerian authorities or areas. [29] Lastly, the Appellants also submit the RPD erred on the face of its decision that the VAPP Act 2015 is a federal legislation that is only applicable in the federal capital territory Abuja and has not been adequately enforced. Also, that there is no evidence before the RPD that it has been re-enacted by Rivers State for it to be in Port Harcourt, River State. Nigeria is a federation and federal statutes are not applicable in state until re-enacted by the states. [30] I agree with the RPD's conclusion that the objective evidence on the current state protection is mixed, it is not absent. Nigeria does have a functioning government and federal police force. Nigeria has taken steps against such practices for the better through the enactment of the VAPP to criminalize those who perform, attempt to perform, counsel to perform, or aid those who perform harmful traditional practices. This evidence shows the police are willing to enforce the law for those claiming to be victims of harmful traditional practices. For example, according to the Nigerian NDP: "actions taken by police may include the police going to the community and telling the community that the complainant should not be compelled to participate in the ritual practices, and making statements that "no harm should come to the person as she or he has been placed under protections" or "police may provide police personnel to guard the person".20 Also sources report that as a federal law, the VAPP is only effective in the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja; only the high court of the GCT has jurisdiction to hear and grant applications, including restraining orders.21 While some other states have their own domestic violence legislation, only a handful have ratified the VAPP to date.22 [31] The Appellants have not provided any objective evidence to demonstrate that the VAPP is not enforced in Abuja. They have also not provided objective evidence to demonstrate that other domestic violence legislation is not available or enforced in Port Harcourt. There is also no evidence that the Appellants could not avail themselves of state protection as they have only tried to do so once in Lagos. I also agree with the RPD conclusion that the evidence supports the conclusion that the highly educated PA, and his equally highly educated spouse, the AA, should be able to avail themselves of protection from non-state actors as they have been to be able to do in the past. The RPD correctly found the Appellants could avail themselves of state protection in Nigeria and they did not demonstrate that their actions taken to test the willingness of the state to protect them was inadequate based on the objective evidence. IFA [32] After assessing the two-prong test, the RPD found that the Appellants have an IFA to either Abuja or Port Harcourt. Specifically, the RPD found there was no serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA locations and that the Appellants had failed to establish that the proposed IFAs would be objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances. [33] The Appellants' submit that the RPD erred in its analysis of the evidence that established that the IFAs are unreasonable in the personal circumstances of the Appellants' family, namely their Yoruba ethnicity and the two medical reports adduced. This unequivocally established that the proposed IFA cities are objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances of the Appellants due to the non-availability of treatment for the PA's ongoing medical condition, which treatment is critical to the Appellants' ability to successfully relocate to and settle in the IFA location. Appellants would not face serious possibility of persecution or risk to life, danger, or torture or of cruel and unusual treatment in either of the IFA cities [34] The RPD found that the proposed IFA cities were far from Lagos, where the Appellants used to reside for many years. The community elders that the Appellants fear reside in Ogun State which is to the immediate north of Lagos. The Appellants said they could not relocate to either Abuja or Port Harcourt and their response was because if they moved to either location people could find them. The RPD found that the Appellants' subjective fear that he and his family could be found in either of the two proposed IFAs is insufficient evidence that the Appellants could not be safe in either of these locations. The RPD also considered whether the agents of alleged persecution had the means and motivation to seek the Appellants out. The RPD found that the elders took no action to force their demands which suggested that the elders were not particularly motivated to pursue the Appellants over their demands that the AA and minor Appellant undergo these rituals. In addition to that, the RPD found that the Appellants still had agency and can refuse the demand nor were the Appellants aware that the elders could compel either him or his wife to give in to the elders demands. Lastly, the Appellants presented no evidence to suggest that the elders from Ogun State would have the means to locate them. [35] The Appellants submit that the fact that the PA bears the traditional tribal marks of his family lineage conspicuously on his face would make him easily recognizable if they relocated to another part of Nigeria. His tribal marks would expose them to the serious possibility of persecution in Abuja or Port Harcourt as they could be located by people who would report their location to the PA's family. Also, they submit that the PA's Yoruba ethnic group has a huge population in the two cities.23 [36] Having reviewed the evidence and the RIR highlighted by the Appellants regarding the Yoruba ethnic group having a huge population in the two cities, I fail to see how this RIR contradicts that. The RIR referred to demonstrate that there is a huge Yoruba population in Abuja or Port Harcourt, their ethnic group and thereby easily identify them does not do so. The Appellants have failed to link the identified RIR to demonstrate to me that in their personal circumstances the Yoruba ethnic group would be problematic for them. They spent years in Lagos, a community where the Yoruba ethic group is prevalent which did not cause them any problems or expose them to a serious possibility of persecution. It is not sufficient to state that because a large population of Yoruba ethnic group live in Abuja and Port Harcourt that their community will be actively looking for the Appellants and would report their whereabouts to the Balogun elders when the agents of persecution themselves have not demonstrated particular motivations or means to do so. [37] I find the RPD correctly concluded that the Appellants would not face a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life, danger, or torture or of cruel and unusual treatment in either of the IFAs. There is no evidence that the agents of persecution, the elders from Ogun State, are motivated to find them or have the means to do so in Abuja or Port Harcourt. Lastly, I agree with the RPD that the Appellants have demonstrated they have been able to avoid the demands for the AA and minor Appellant to undergo these rituals. In addition to that, the RPD correctly found that the Appellants still had agency and can refuse the demand nor was the Appellants aware that the elders could compel either him or his wife to give in to the elders demands. [38] Similarly, based on my prior reasons in this appeal, there is no evidence to support the VAPP would not be enforced in Abuja or other protection could not be available to them in Port Harcourt if the Appellants needed to avail themselves of state protection. The enforcement of the VAPP or other legislation, however, in my view is not determinative but it is an issue that demonstrates that the Appellants would not face a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life, danger, or torture or of cruel and unusual treatment in either of the IFA cities. It is objectively reasonable for the Appellants to relocate to either of the IFA cities [39] The RPD found the Appellants failed to establish that the proposed IFA cities would be objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances. The RPD conducted a thorough assessment of the issues to be considered as seen in paragraphs 39-47, which led to their conclusion of the second prong. [40] The Appellants submit that the RPD averted the two medical reports before it that unequivocally established that the proposed IFA cities of either Abuja or Port Harcourt is objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances of the Appellants due to the non-availability of treatment for the ongoing medical condition of the PA which is critical to the family's ability to successfully relocate to and settle in the IFA location. [41] The RPD considered the Appellants' arguments regarding their need for ongoing medical treatment under the section entitled Availability of Medical and Mental Health Care at paragraphs 46-48. In relations to the risk analysis under section 97, the RPD took into account the considerations at paragraphs 53-61 when it assessed the reasonableness of the IFA and that the Appellants are not persons in need of protection for the PA's specifically as he suffered a heart attack after he came to Canada. The RPD found that the Appellants failed to demonstrate that such medical considerations would render the proposed IFA objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in the particular circumstances. [42] Having considered the two medical letters in the record,24 it's important to highlight that Dr. XXXX letter25 references he reviewed a discharge note and information provided by the above-named, which is the PA. The only medical document before the RPD regarding discharge was the "ACS Discharge Summary" that is dated July 15, 2019.26 It is unclear whether Dr. XXXX and the RPD had the same discharge information before them, however, the Appellant has the burden to prove their claims and choice of documentary evidence they want the RPD and RAD to consider. Nonetheless, I have considered the medical letters, as did the RPD. The first medical letter,27 states while these services are available there is a lack of funding to the healthcare in Nigeria and lack of necessary facilities that cardiac care needs. This medical letter also provides the cost of heart failure per year but does not specify whether the amount quoted is in Nigerian currency or other currency. It also notes a lack of well-structured emergency services in the IFA cities and that personal transportation is not practical as both cities are metropolitan and prone to regular traffic gridlock. Lastly, the maintenance of the ICD device is done in 10 centres in Nigeria, none in Abuja and just one in the entire south-south region, not specified where. The cost for ICD maintenance varies on the centres. It is also noted that the HYUOXX model used for the PA is not available in the country and its diagnostic not possible. The second medical letter28 by the same doctor, not dated, also refers to a requirement of bi-monthly checkups by a cardiologist and a neurologist as being important for the PA's care and will also include frequent investigations like MRI, CT Scan, ECG, etc. [43] The Appellants' advanced an argument about the availability of medical and mental health care, due to his heart attack in Canada. The RPD considered the PA's testimony that his condition needed periodic check-ups. Based on the two letters from Dr. XXXX, the RPD correctly concluded that with specific regard to the availability of care of patients in the PA's situation, Dr. XXXX observed that Abuja and Port Harcourt has very few cardiologists and neurologists and the cost ranges between $7,000 and $11,500 per year.29 [44] I agree with the RPD assessment of the objective evidence, Nigeria has a functioning healthcare system that is "organised into primary, secondary, and tertiary healthcare levels"30 and Healthcare in Nigeria delivers concurrently by the three levels of government: Federal, state, and local.31 Limitations on the Nigerian healthcare system appear to affect all Nigerians, it is a general situation faced by all. I have considered that the PA's particular circumstances are such that his heart condition stemmed from an incident which happened after they left Nigeria. Based on the medical information before me, the PA will be able to access the medical attention he would need in the future in the IFA despite there being few cardiologists and neurologists in Abuja and Port Harcourt as observed by Dr. XXXX. The fact is there are specialists that the PA would require to treat his current medical condition. The RPD correctly concluded that the Appellants have failed to meet their burden in showing that such considerations in their case would rise to a level that would render the IFA objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in their particular circumstances. Further, the RPD also considered the observation that the cost of ICD maintenance the doctor observed, "cannot be ascertained because the facility is not available in Nigeria; therefore most patients travel abroad for better healthcare services".32 The RPD arrived at an opposite conclusion, being that the services are available based on two reports that the services for patients like the PA are available in Nigeria in either the tertiary government-owned or private clinics. The RPD also acknowledged there are limitations to the accessibility of services depending on the centre, and the cost of these services in private hospitals can be expensive. The RPD also correctly points to the fact that the reports are somewhat contradictory on the subject of ICD maintenance, with one report identifying ten centres that implant pace-makers and the other maintaining that no such service is available in Nigeria and suggesting that patients travel abroad for better healthcare services. 33 The RPD recognized that while it was not optimal for the PA, it did not conclude from the information before it that conditions in Nigeria would be such as to jeopardize the life and safety of the Appellant in travelling or relocating to either of the suggested IFAs. Taken in its totality, the RPD found that the evidence did not support the conclusion that conditions are such that they would render the proposed IFA objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in their particular circumstances. I agree with the RPD assessment, the RPD correctly concluded that the PA's medical circumstances did not amount to the proposed IFA objectively being unreasonable or unduly harsh based on all the circumstances. [45] Also, I further observe that the RPD nor the RAD had any documentary evidence about the ICD model that was implanted in the PA from a Canadian doctor or the discharge note that Dr. XXXX is responding to. I find the lack of Canadian medical information to compare the evidence from Dr. XXXX is problematic and not helpful in my assessment of the credibility of medical evidence from Nigeria. Also, Dr. XXXX signs his letters differently in both letters: "MBSS" which usually means Bachelor of Medicine; Bachelor of Surgery in his first letter and as Medical Director of a lab in the second letter. Dr. XXXX different signatures does not demonstrate to me that he was even qualified to provide such reports which further adds to the contradiction of these letters. The Appellants did not provide Dr. XXXX curriculum vitae as is often attached to medical letters when claimants or Appellants want medical evidence to be considered so the RPD or RAD can assess whether the doctor providing the information is qualified to do so. Despite my added concerns, the RPD correctly and fairly assessed what was in front of them. [46] The RPD correctly concluded that Abuja or Port Harcourt were a viable IFA in the present circumstances. Based on all the evidence, I find it is objectively reasonable for the Appellants to relocate to either of the IFA cities. The Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection [47] Based on the above reasons, I concur with the RPD reasons that the Appellants are not Convention refugees or person in need of protection. CONCLUSION [48] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (signed) Julie Ryan Julie Ryan February 26, 2021 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 P-2, Appellant's Record, Sworn Affidavit of XXXX XXXX dated September 28, 2020, pages 2-4. 3 Ibid., Medical consultation report from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dated February 3, 2020, pages 5-9. 4 Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 6 Ibid., supra note 4. 7 Ibid., supra note 5. 8 RPD-1, RPD Record, Narrative, paragraphs 4 and 5, page 33. 9 RPD-1, Audio of RPD hearing November 6, 2019, at approximately 01:04:43. 10 Ibid., supra note 8, paragraph 4, page 33. 11 Ibid., paragraph 5, page 33. 12 Ibid., Minor Appellant's Nigerian passport - biopage, page 161. 13 Ibid., PA's Nigerian passport - biopage, page 105. 14 Ibid., PA's US visa, page 108; and AA's US visa, page 139. 15 Ibid., US admitted stamps by Homeland Security, pages 107 and 139. 16 Ibid., RPD Reasons for decision signed on August 19, 2020, paragraph 23, page 8. 17 Ibid., supra note 9, approximately 01:11:29 to 01:14:00. 18 Ibid., Narrative, paragraph 3, page 32. 19 Ibid., Nigerian NDP August 20, 2019 - Item 10.8, RIR NGA105659.E: 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), 14 November 2016, Section 2 Police, page 170. 20 Ibid., Item 10.8, section 2. 21 NDP for Nigeria (29 November 2019), Item 5.3, IRB Research Directorate, Response to Information Request NGA106360.E, "Nigeria: Domestic violence, including legislation; protection and support services offered to victims (2016-November 2019)," 14 November 2019, page 9. 22 Ibid., pages 11-12. 23 Ibid., Item 5.9, RIR, NGA103907.E: Whether women who head their own households, without a 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 support services available to female-headed households. 19 November 2012, page 170. 24 Ibid., post hearing medical documents, pages 262-266. 25 Ibid., General Hospital Iju/Itaogbolu letter from Dr. XXXX dated November 14, 2019, "Availability and Affordability of Care for ICD Patient in Porthacourt and Abuja (Nigeria)" page 262. 26 Ibid., ACS Discharge Summary, admit date July 15, 2019, and RUN date July 21, 2019, pages 183-184. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid., Azir Hospital letter from Dr. XXXX undated and his business card, pages 264-265. 29 Ibid., page 264; RPD reasons, paragraph 59, page 18. 30 Ibid., Item 1.9, Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Medical and Healthcare Issues. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. 28 August 2018 , page 6, section 1.1.1. 31 Ibid., section 1.1.2. 32 Ibid., RPD reasons paragraph 59, page 18; Ibid., supra note 25, paragraph 5. 33 Ibid. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-10304 TC0-10305 / TC0-10306 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) 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 (January, 2020) Disponible en français