TB9-16504

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-16504 TB9-16505 / TB9-16506 / TB9-16507 TB9-16508 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 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 4 2020 Date de la décision Panel Rouba Al-Salem Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Orr Kolesnik 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), his wife XXXX XXXX XXXX (Associate Appellant) and their children XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (Minor Associate Appellants) are citizens of Nigeria.1 Together, they appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated May 27, 2019, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. [2] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.2

BACKGROUND [3] XXXX is a Nigerian of Igbo ethnicity who works as a XXXX in Ibadan. He alleges that since expecting the birth of his daughter XXXX in 2014, the Appellants have faced threats by members of XXXX extended family, due to his objection, and that of his wife to their demands to have their daughter XXXX circumcised. These threats, they allege, includes physical harm if they report the incidents to the police.3 In his oral testimony XXXX claims that these threats involved death threats.4 [4] The Appellants also allege that they have been physically threatened by the members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and the Alusi-Okija Secret Society (thereafter the 'Secret Society') because of XXXX refusal to join them. The demand for him to join them was allegedly made in writing, by way of a letter, which XXXX claims to have received at home in XXXX 2016. As a result of XXXX refusal to join, he alleges to have received threats, both in person and over the phone, to harm all of the Appellants. [5] According to the Appellants, these threats materialized. On the morning of XXXX XXXX, 2014, XXXX was allegedly followed by three persons in a car, while driving to work. They subsequently attempted on the same day to kidnap two of their children from their school. Moreover, XXXX claims that he received a phone call threatening his wife and children during their stay in Abuja

in XXXX 2017 for the purpose of obtaining a US visa. [6] On XXXX XXXX, 2016, IPOB members allegedly attacked his home - during which his dog and the home's night guard were killed - before escaping. [7] On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, the Appellants travelled to the USA where they lived for XXXX months with XXXX brother-in-law. They then made an irregular border crossing into Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017, and made a claim for refugee protection.

SCOPE OF THE RAD REVIEW [8] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.5 [9] In the case of women who are allegedly the subject of domestic abuse, I took note of the Appellants' personal circumstances and sought to apply the Chairperson Guidelines 4 on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender Related Persecution and the Chairperson Guidelines 3: Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues when evaluating their appeals. [10] The Appellants have not submitted any new evidence and have not requested an oral hearing.

DETERMINATIVE ISSUE [11] After conducting an independent assessment of all of the evidence in this case, I concur with the RPD that the determinative issue is the lack of credibility of the Appellants' claim with respect to the alleged threat that they face for their refusal to have XXXX circumcised, and for XXXX refusal to be forcefully recruited by the IPOB.6 [12] Except where stated, I found the RPD's credibility findings to be correct. Even where the RPD erred, I did not find that the error was significant enough to undermine the RPD's conclusion that the Appellants' account of events that are central to their claim was not credible.

ANALYSIS 1. Regarding Allegations that XXXX Extended Family would Inflict Serious Harm on the Appellants because of XXXX Refusal to have XXXX Circumcised [13] In its decision, the RPD panel concluded that the Appellants provided inconsistent and insufficient evidence to corroborate their allegations that they would face a serious level of harm if XXXX did not agree to his extended family's demand to have XXXX circumcised,7 or that XXXX herself would face more than a mere possibility of being harmed. [14] On appeal, the Appellants submit that the RPD had erred in its credibility assessment of the Appellants' allegations concerning XXXX circumcision. This, they claim, is because the RPD panel did not assess XXXX testimony in its totality and conducted a microscopic examination of the evidence.8 [15] For the reasons that I explain below, I find that the RPD did not err in its conclusion. (a) Regarding the Appellants' Allegations that XXXX Extended Family made Death Threats against the Appellants [16] In the amended narrative, XXXX alleges that up until 2014, when he and XXXX were expecting XXXX, they lived without interference from their immediate clan in their village situated in Anambra State. However, once the immediate clan found out that they were expecting a baby girl, in XXXX 2014, he and his wife allegedly received a visit by two members of his paternal relatives and the

Chief Custodian of their Culture (also known as a native doctor), demanding that they present XXXX for circumcision, and verbally attacked them when they objected to those demands. [17] This was allegedly followed by another visit, XXXX weeks after XXXX was born, when in XXXX 2014 two male relatives reiterated the demand. XXXX claims that in response to their demand, he ordered them to leave the house. According to XXXX, the visitors then "threatened us with bloodshed, if we made any formal report to the police, that if it took them 10 years, they must surely carry out the procedure on our daughter."9 He also claims that his extended family had made death threats against him and XXXX; that "they would go to any means" to fight them, and that his extended family would have people call him to warn him that he needs to present his daughter for circumcision.10 [18] In its decision, the RPD concluded that it was not evident from XXXX testimony what threat the Appellants felt, other than being pressured by XXXX extended family to have XXXX circumcised.11 [19] On appeal, the Appellants submit that the RPD did not assess XXXX testimony in its totality. In this regard, they allege that the verbal disputes with members of XXXX extended family (in which they have stated that they would fight him over this issue) amount to real threats.12 In addition, they submit on appeal that the RPD

erred because it did not confront XXXX with concerns it had about his testimony.13 Furthermore, even if there were inconsistencies in his testimony, the Appellants submit that these inconsistencies were not sufficiently serious to undermine the credibility and consistency of his claim,14 in line with the Maldonado test.15 [20] I find that the RPD was correct in concluding that there was not sufficient persuasive evidence to corroborate the Appellants' allegations that XXXX extended family made death threats on the Appellants' lives. After listening to the entire recording of the RPD hearing, I find that XXXX oral testimony was vague concerning the level of the alleged threat by his extended family. For example, when the RPD panel inquired why he had stated that he felt that there were threats to their lives, XXXX responded that this was the case because his extended family believed that XXXX had an influence on him, and that during the first visit of members of his extended family to their house, they allegedly threatened him that if he doesn't circumcise his daughter it would lead to death.16 However, his account of subsequent encounters does not corroborate his allegation that he and his wife were facing a life-threatening situation by his extended family. [21] In this regard, when the RPD panel asked XXXX if he had received any subsequent threats, he mentions that he

received a phone call from his brother in XXXX 2014. When the RPD panel then asked him to provide more details regarding his interaction with his brother in that phone call, XXXX states that his brother decided to call him because he had heard from the village inhabitants that XXXX is 'being difficult'. His brother then allegedly advised him to go along with it; to think about it and do the right thing.17 [22] Subsequently, when the RPD panel inquired if other people were "sent to him" to threaten him, XXXX responded that no one else was sent to threaten him.18 According to XXXX, he sought the opinion of a few relatives, who expressed their belief that XXXX ought to be circumcised. As a result, XXXX allegedly decided that there was no point in speaking with anyone in his family about this matter.19 In his statement, he does not mention that these family members made any threats towards him, of the nature that he alleges, or otherwise. [23] XXXX then claims that he received phone calls in 2014 and 2017 from two persons in his village.20 When the RPD inquired how often he received calls, he responded that he received some in 2014, and that, for approximately a year, he did not hear back from the callers.21 Subsequently, from 2016-2017, XXXX alleges that they called from time to time to tell him, "XXXX you have to get this thing done."22 I find that these accounts by the Principal

Appellant do not corroborate, on a balance of probabilities, his claim that the Appellants were facing death threats by his extended family, and draw a negative inference. (b) Regarding the Appellants' Allegations that Members of XXXX Extended Family would Kidnap XXXX if the Appellants Continue Opposing the Circumcision [24] During the RPD hearing, the panel asked XXXX to explain why he had found the aforementioned phone calls threatening.23 In response, he stated that "maybe some day they could just attack my home and you know kidnap my daughter and circumcise [her] forcefully."24 [25] In its decision, the RPD concluded that the Appellants failed to establish the credibility of their allegations that the threat - of kidnapping XXXX and having her forcibly circumcised by extended members of his family - had taken place.25 In explaining its conclusion, the RPD underscored that these allegations are not consistent with those that XXXX had made in his Basis of Claim (BOC). Unlike what he mentioned in his oral testimony, the written narrative attached to his BOC was devoid of any reference to the claim that his extended family had explicitly threatened to harm XXXX. Nor did the Appellants provide any persuasive evidence that the interaction between XXXX and his extended family corroborates their allegation that such threats were forthcoming.26 [26] On appeal, the Appellants firstly

submitted that the RPD panel erred in its conclusion because it did not consider that their fear came as a result of the incidents or threats that happened before, namely that the extended family which had visited him in 2014 and 2016 had made it known to XXXX that they intend to fight him over his rejection of the circumcision.27 Secondly, they allege on appeal that their fear that someday their house could be attacked and XXXX be forcefully taken to be circumcised, is due to genuine threats that have caused them mental anguish, and that these threats establish a well-founded fear of persecution, in both the past and in the future.28 Thirdly, they submit in the Appellants' memorandum of appeal that the objective evidence for Nigeria also indicates that circumcision is practised on girls, as early as a couple of days after birth. Fourthly, they submit on appeal that the RPD did not assess the evidence in its totality, without giving due consideration to evidence that is to the contrary.29 [27] I believe that the RPD did not err in its conclusion that the Appellants failed to provide an objective basis for those allegations. To begin with, XXXX omitted to mention in his BOC that he feared that his extended family would kidnap his daughter as a way of forcibly having her circumcised. While I accept as plausible that his extended family may have stated that they intend to fight

him over this issue, I do not agree with the Appellants that it is equivalent to an admission on their part that they seek to kidnap XXXX and forcibly circumcise her. Moreover, XXXX first made those allegations in his oral testimony. In addition, he did not mention any events or incidents that could corroborate the Appellants' claim that there is a serious possibility that XXXX extended family have the interest and power to kidnap XXXX for the purpose of circumcising her. [28] I find therefore that while the treatment that the Appellants anticipate in relation to his daughter would amount to serious harm if it does occur, I do not find that they have demonstrated that there is a reasonable chance that she would experience the apprehended harm of being kidnapped, let alone be forcibly circumcised. In particular, they have not provided sufficient and persuasive evidence that there is a serious possibility that XXXX extended family would persecute XXXX, nor on a balance of probabilities, a risk that they would harm her. [29] Concerning the objective documentary evidence on female genital mutilation (FGM), I have conducted my own independent assessment of the material that the Appellants had submitted to the RPD, and which consists of three newspaper articles by the Guardian Nigeria and one from Vanguard News.30 The newspaper articles are dated between January 2017 and January

2018, and highlight that 27% of Nigerian women between the ages of 15-49 are victims of FGM. More specifically, one article recounts that a Nigerian couple conceded to the demand of their community and extended family to have their daughters circumcised in the face of threats to be banished. A second article discusses how a mother faced threats to be attacked if she does not circumcise her daughter but does not mention whether the circumcision took place as a result or not. The third article speaks of the efforts of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) to address the rates of FGM in Imo State. [30] While I take note that this documentary evidence seeks to corroborate the allegations of the Appellants concerning the prevalence of FGM in Nigeria, including against girls, and that the risk can arise from agents of persecution within extended families, I find that this is not sufficient to establish a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, a risk of harm of XXXX, for two reasons. [31] The first reason is that the Appellants have not provided sufficient persuasive evidence to corroborate their allegations that XXXX is similarly situated to girls who are at risk of FGM in Nigeria.31 In this regard, as part of the independent country documentation for Nigeria, a Response to Information Request (RIR) which was available to the Appellants,

underscored that the decision to subject a girl to FGM in Nigeria is up the girl's parents.32 A study conducted in four Nigerian states where there is a high prevalence of FGM, including Imo and Delta, and published in January 2018, also indicates that the decision is made by both parents, but that the male head of the household has the last word.33 Even in communities where FGM is prevalent, some parents refuse to have their daughter undergo FGM, especially educated parents.34 When speaking about rural areas, the threats against parents who refuse FGM are generally limited to being ostracized for a time or publicly criticized.35 [32] At the same time, I am mindful that other sources in the independent country documentation do acknowledge that the parent of a minor child who is opposed to her undergoing FGM, within communities practising FGM, face societal discrimination, blackmailing, denial of intercultural benefits and ostracism for going against cultural or family traditions.36 In addition, it has been reported that grandparents of the eldest female on the paternal side may also have a decisive role. When other relatives try to influence the decision, they may pressure the parents by threats to withhold support due to their "wrong" decisions. However, according to the same source, this is generally considered a "family issue" and parents are usually not subjected to

violence or threats of violence.37 And although a few cases of relatives disregarding the parents' decision and taking matters into their own hands to subject the girl to FGM have been reported, this is considered to be the exception and not the norm.38 [33] The Appellants' claim - that they fear persecution for objecting to XXXX circumcision - represents a central element of their refugee protection claim. However, in light of XXXX particular circumstances and the independent country documentation, I find that they did not provide persuasive evidence that there was an objective basis for those fears. For a refugee protection claim to succeed, evidence must show not only that there is subjective fear, but that the fear is objectively well-founded.39 The Appellants have not succeeded in demonstrating that this is the case.

2. Allegations Regarding XXXX Forcible Recruitment by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and by the Alusi Aokija Secret Society (a) The Events Alleged by the Appellants in Relation to Attempts to Recruit XXXX [34] In his written testimony, XXXX alleged that in XXXX 2016, a letter requesting him to join IPOB and the Secret Society was dropped off at his home.40 Allegedly written by two IPOB supporters, Festus Obinna and Adolphus Njoku, who were tasked with recruiting Nigerians who are ethnic Igbos across Nigeria, the letter promises him that, in return for joining both IPOB and the Secret Society, they would introduce him to the leader of the movement, Mazi Kanu.41 Furthermore, the letter granted XXXX one week to decide whether he would join them, and he was to communicate his decision to Njoku, who would serve as his mentor.42 [35] XXXX alleges that initially, he had ignored the letter, but that during a subsequent business trip to Lagos a few days later, he was approached by two men who inquired whether he had received the letter that was dropped off at his home. According to XXXX, when he stated his refusal to join, the men warned him that failure to do so would risk that his wife and kids get kidnapped or even killed. They also allegedly cautioned him against reporting this incident to the police, claiming that they have sympathizers within security agencies across the

country. Furthermore, they gave him one week to communicate his acceptance of the terms of the letter.43 [36] Subsequently, on XXXX XXXX, 2017, XXXX alleges to have received a call in which they reiterated that they have grown impatient with his refusal to join and allegedly reiterated the threat to harm him and his family.44 He also claims that he reiterated that "I was not going to join the cult, neither was I going to join IPOB."45 One day later, he claims to have reported the incident to a police station in Ibadan.46 [37] This was followed by a third incident on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, during which XXXX was allegedly followed by three men in a car, but she eventually managed to shake them off.47 The same day, according to XXXX, a woman attempted to pick up XXXX and XXXX from school without their parents' authorization. She escaped when the school contacted the parents to verify the identity of the woman. The woman was subsequently seen getting into the same car that had allegedly trailed XXXX, before escaping the scene.48 [38] A fourth incident allegedly took place during the evening of XXXX XXXX, 2017. According to XXXX, men attacked his home and tried to break down the door, before escaping when he called one of the neighbours (who also happens to work for the government), and who then mobilized the help of the local vigilante group.49 XXXX also states that one of the

attackers was heard shouting that this was in response to his refusal to join IPOB, to his decision to report them to the police despite their warnings, and that they would die today.50 The attack resulted in the killing of the family's dog and the night guard XXXX before the attackers escaped.51 Subsequently, he and XXXX allegedly moved on a temporary basis to a friend's home (but later admitted that it was in fact his in-laws' house),52 and were also hospitalized in XXXX 2017 for XXXX XXXX XXXX days for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.53 [39] The last incident took place in XXXX 2017. According to XXXX, the Appellants decided to leave Nigeria for the USA, for safety. Consequently, he and XXXX applied for a US visa for only one of their children. Subsequently, XXXX allegedly travelled to Abuja with XXXX, XXXX and XXXX to collect the visa. According to XXXX, IPOB members then called him twice to inform him that they were aware his family was in the city and that they would not be so lucky as to escape this time. They managed to return safely to Ibadan.54 [40] In its conclusion, the RPD found that, based on the documentary evidence and XXXX oral testimony, the Appellants' allegations that IPOB and Secret Society members sought to recruit XXXX and physically harm him and his family members because of his refusal to join them, was not credible.55 [41] On appeal, the Appellants submit

that the RPD has made erroneous findings throughout its decision with respect to the credibility of their claim, and that it substituted its own illogical and biased point of view.56 [42] For the reasons explained below, I do not find that the RPD erred in its conclusion that the Appellants were not credible in relation to their allegations that XXXX received a letter from IPOB in an effort to recruit him, and that they fear that IPOB would harm them if they were to return to Nigeria.57 (b) The Credibility of the Letter Recruitment [43] In its decision, the RPD concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the letter of recruitment was not credible or reliable,58 and that consequently, the Appellants' claim about XXXX being recruited is contrived.59 The RPD cites a number of elements for making this determination, which I have assessed below. (i) Contradictions between XXXX Written and Oral Testimony Concerning Which Organizations He was Asked to Join [44] In its decision, the RPD found that there were serious contradictions between XXXX written and oral testimony, on the one hand, and the information contained in the letter, as to whether he was asked to join both IPOB and the Secret Society, or only the former. Although XXXX testified that he was asked to join both of these organisms, no demands were made in the letter for XXXX to join the Secret Society, as he alleges.

Given the Appellants' claim that several of the attacks and threats on their lives arose as a direct result of XXXX refusal to heed to the demands allegedly made by IPOB supporters in the letter,60 I find that this document is central to their claim.61 [45] In its decision, the RPD panel asked itself the question whether or not the IPOB letter may have been written by amateurs, as a way of explaining why it was devoid of any contact information, and why two IPOB members had, at a time of heightened political confrontation with the Nigerian security forces, chosen to sign it. However, in the end, the RPD concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, this was not the case, given allegations by the Principal Appellant that XXXX days after the letter was delivered at his home, IPOB supporters were able to track him down in Lagos while on a business trip, and in a separate incident, to establish that his wife was in Abuja. In the RPD's view, these allegations suggest the contrary: namely that IPOB was sophisticated and well organized.62 [46] As a result of these contradictions, the RPD found that, on a balance of probabilities, the letter was not genuine. It also concluded that any of the evidence that the Appellants have provided, regarding the letter and other interactions between XXXX and his family, and with IPOB following the supposed receipt of this letter, were also

unreliable.63 [47] On appeal, the Appellants submit that the RPD erred in finding that the letter was not genuine and in not considering XXXX explanations regarding it.64 Moreover, they submit that the RPD did not provide any reliable reasons why it called into question the genuine nature of this document.65 [48] I find that the RPD did not err in its conclusion that, on a balance of probabilities, the letter is not genuine. In addition, I disagree with the Appellants' claim that the RPD did not consider XXXX explanation, or that it did not provide reliable reasons. This is because I agree with the RPD's findings that XXXX had stated on more than one occasion that the letter had invited him to join both IPOB and the Secret Society.66 In fact, in his written testimony, XXXX opening paragraph underscores that one reason he fears returning to Nigeria, is because "[...] I am being forced to join IPOB and a secret society."67 Subsequently, he stated that the letter was signed by two persons: XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. He claims that these two men introduced themselves as members of both IPOB and the Alusi Okija Secret Society.68 Moreover, he mentions in his BOC that "[t]hey formally introduced the two movements to me and requested I joined them."69 When the RPD panel inquired with XXXX who the Society is,70 he explained that they "also want me to join,"71 and that in several

discussions, they told him that if he joins, they would make him powerful and that he would partake in the government once they achieve independence.72 [49] Furthermore, the RPD asked XXXX to confirm what he had stated in his BOC, namely that in the letter which he had received, two men had introduced themselves as members of both IPOB and the Secret Society before introducing both bodies.73 XXXX responded in the affirmative,74 and that "they mention the society in the letter."75 At the oral hearing, the RPD panel confronts XXXX about this discrepancy, and points out to him that the letter did not make any reference to the Secret Society or to demands that he joins it, as he had alleged.76 In response, XXXX gives a different answer, namely that since IPOB was the main concern, the Society was not mentioned in the letter, and that it was first raised by the individuals whom he met during his business trip to Lagos XXXX days later.77 [50] The RPD did not find this explanation credible and drew a negative inference.78 I agree with the panel. When XXXX testified about his encounter with the men in a parking lot in Lagos during a business trip, he stated that they were strangers and had never mentioned their names to him. He also provided a set of reasons for why he did not want to join the activities of the group (in reference to IPOB), namely that the government considers them a

terrorist group and that he was not interested.79 Throughout his response, he made no reference in his answer to the Secret Society, or that the men had asked him to join it.80 I therefore find that XXXX answer did not provide a sufficient explanation for the discrepancy between what he claims was in the letter and what the letter stated, and draw a negative inference. [51] In this regard, I also note that I do not agree with the Appellants' allegation on appeal that the RPD did not consider his explanation. Rather, I find as demonstrated above from the questioning by the RPD, that the RPD gave XXXX the opportunity to explain any discrepancies that the panel had found, considered the explanation he gave but found it not to be credible. Hence, I do not find that the RPD erred in this regard. (ii) Contradictions between XXXX Oral and Written Testimony Regarding the Means of Communicating with IPOB Supporters [52] In his written testimony, XXXX states that he had one week to decide whether he would be joining them, and that he is to communicate his decision through one of the signatories of the letter (XXXX), who will serve as his guardian.81 He also stated in his BOC that the writers of the letter had made it clear to him that "they were willing to meet with me in any part of Nigeria for further discussions and initiation."82 [53] The RPD found that there was no reference in the

letter to XXXX allegations that IPOB supporters would arrange to meet with him. Similarly, it did not contain contact details. Therefore, the RPD decided that it was not clear how XXXX was to communicate his decision about whether or not he would join IPOB as the letter had demanded. When the RPD confronted XXXX about this discrepancy, he stated that he did not understand this either. The RPD panel did not find the explanation reasonable and concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the letter was not credible.83 [54] On appeal, the Appellants submit that the RPD did not give them an opportunity to clarify the contradiction or inconsistencies. In addition, they submit that the RPD did not take into consideration the psychiatric report that they submitted,84 and which seeks to provide an assessment of XXXX mental and emotional state.85 [55] With regard to the letter, I disagree with the Appellants' claim that the RPD panel did not provide them with an opportunity to clarify inconsistencies or contradictions. During the RPD hearing, I note that the panel specifically asked the Principal Appellant how he was expected to respond to the letter.86 In response, XXXX stated that there was no contact information or name for a contact person, and that therefore, he decided to ignore the letter at first.87 This, he alleges, was the case until he encountered the men on his business

trip in Lagos.88 [56] In this regard, I find that the RPD was correct in its conclusion that if IPOB supporters were expecting an answer from XXXX as to whether or not he would join them, the letter would, on a balance of probabilities, have stated how XXXX was to communicate his decision to them, either by providing contact information or otherwise. I therefore concur with the RPD's conclusion in this regard. [57] On appeal, the Appellants submit that the RPD did not consider the psychological report's findings with respect to XXXX psychological state that was submitted as evidence. I have conducted my own independent assessment of the report. The psychiatric report was issued in Toronto in XXXX 2018, and was based on an assessment of 90 minutes. It concludes that the symptoms displayed by XXXX are features "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX."89 The report also mentions that XXXX has difficulty remembering events in the past.90 [58] I still find that the reports' findings do not account for the discrepancy between what XXXX had stated in his written testimony, on the one hand, and what information the IPOB recruitment letter has stipulated, on the other hand. This is because, during the RPD hearing, the panel confronted XXXX about the discrepancies between what he had stated in his oral testimony with respect to the details included in the recruitment letter and what the

letter actually stated. At no point did XXXX or his Counsel invoke his inability to recollect events, or remember significant aspects of his claim, as a reason for these contradictions. Instead, he furnished other reasons, such as that recruiting him for IPOB took place during the meeting with the two men in Lagos and not through the letter (see para 49 above). I therefore find that, on a balance of probabilities, these inconsistencies were serious enough to justify contradictions or inconsistencies in the Principal Appellant's testimony and draw a negative inference. (iii) Credibility Concerns Regarding the Appellants' Claim that the Agents of Persecution would Introduce XXXX to the IPOB Leader Mazi Kanu [59] In his written testimony, XXXX stated that upon accepting the offer to be recruited, he was informed in the letter that he would be trained and initiated, and ultimately meet "our leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu."91 [60] The RPD found that this allegation further undermined the plausibility that the letter is genuine. To support its conclusion, the RPD underscored two concerns that it had, and which it put forward to XXXX. Firstly, as indicated by the national documentation package (NDP) for Nigeria, the date of the letter coincided with a time of tension and violence between IPOB supporters and Nigerian security forces. During this time, IPOB supporters were killed and

arbitrarily arrested by the latter. Given the tense political situation, the RPD concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, IPOB would not be recruiting new members by means of a letter that was signed by two individuals identifying themselves clearly as members of that movement.92 Secondly, the RPD found it improbable that the letter, if genuine, would have promised a meeting between XXXX and their leader Kanu, given that (as the NDP underscores) the latter was in jail from XXXX 2015 up until he was released on bail in 2017.93 [61] On appeal, the Appellants submit that the RPD's finding in this respect was biased, and does not explain why the RPD did not consider the meeting with Kanu part of the recruitment strategy by IPOB.94 [62] I concur with the RPD's finding that given the independent country documentation for Nigeria, which indicates that Kanu was in jail at the time, it was not probable that the letter, if genuine, would propose a meeting between Kanu and XXXX. In response, XXXX states, that "it was not making sense to me, so I just ignored the idea of the letter."95 Furthermore, I note that the Appellants did not dispute the independent country documentation indicating that Kanu at the time was in jail, when the RPD panel confronted XXXX with this information. I therefore find that the RPD was correct in concluding that these findings further undermine the

credibility of the letter. (iv) The Manner in which XXXX was allegedly Recruited [63] In its decision, the RPD found that, on a balance of probabilities, it was not credible that the letter would be signed by two individuals who would clearly identify themselves with the movement, given the Nigerian government's documented crackdown on IPOB at the time. In this regard, the RPD underscores that one of the signatories, Njoku, even identifies himself as the person tasked with training XXXX.96 In justifying its conclusion, the RPD referred to independent country documentation that, at the time, IPOB supporters were being killed and arrested.97 [64] In its decision, the RPD also referred to five documents that XXXX submitted as objective evidence concerning IPOB's operation.98 In this regard, the RPD's decision takes stock of the information that these documents contain, and which related to how IPOB was advocating a boycott of state elections in XXXX 2017; that IPOB attacked a Police Commissioner's house in XXXX and the Nigerian military declared the movement to be a terrorist organization in 2018. The RPD also mentions that all these events, referenced in the documents, postdate the date of the letter (XXXX 2016).99 [65] On appeal, the Appellants submit that the RPD misconstrued the evidence by discarding how these documents demonstrate the IPOB's modus operandi, and therefore

would corroborate their allegations that XXXX had reasons to fear threats for his refusal to join them. In addition, he submits that the RPD erred in dismissing these documents just because these documents postdate the XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016 letter.100 [66] I have examined these documents. They all date from 2017 and 2018, and underscore that there was a significant political confrontation between the Nigerian security forces and IPOB.101 I agree with the Appellants that just because they postdate the letter does not mean they are irrelevant to the analysis of the credibility of their allegations. This, I find, is particularly the case since some of the other events that are central to the Appellants' claim took place in 2017, including the purported attack by IPOB supporters against the Appellants at their home. [67] However, I do not find that the RPD dismissed these documents as the Appellants submitted on appeal. The RPD referred to these documents and subsequently, to the independent country documentation on Nigeria, to underscore that IPOB were considered a security threat by the Nigerian security forces and that there was political discord between the Nigerian State and IPOB supporters.102 The RPD did not question whether or not the Appellants were justified in their alleged subjective fear. Instead, I find that the panel assessed whether or not the Appellants had an

objective basis for this fear. In this regard, it concluded that the evidence which they provided did not corroborate, on a balance of probabilities, their allegations that IPOB supporters were trying to recruit XXXX, or that they were seeking to harm the Appellants because of his refusal to join them. It is to this part that my assessment turns. (c) The Credibility of the Evidence Furnished by the Appellants to Corroborate their Allegations that IPOB Orchestrated the Home Attack (i) Affidavits by Friends and Family Members [68] In its conclusion, the RPD found that none of the affidavits from XXXX family and friends, in addition to the aforementioned psychiatric report that he had furnished, established the credibility of the Appellants' claim concerning the alleged role of IPOB as the agent of persecution, and therefore assigned them little probative value.103 According to the RPD, this is because none of the affiants allege to have been witness to the interaction between XXXX and IPOB. Hence, the RPD concluded that they have based their declarations on information provided by XXXX.104 [69] One affidavit was furnished by a work colleague.105 In it, the affiant states that he knows that XXXX refusal to join IPOB had led to a failed kidnap attempt on his children, and an attack on him in 2017. According to the RPD, there is no further information on how the affiant knows this,

and no further details. As a result, the panel gave this evidence less weight.106 [70] A second affidavit was provided by XXXX brother-in-law, with whom the Appellants stayed for some time in the US.107 While the letter mentions that XXXX was followed and that there was an attack on the Appellant's home, it makes no reference to the IPOB letter, nor that the movement was responsible for the attack. Given how the letter was phrased, the RPD stated that it could be read as implying that the kidnapping attempts and the attack on the house were the result of XXXX refusal to agree to XXXX circumcision, and also gave it less weight.108 [71] A third affidavit was provided by XXXX lawyers in Nigeria.109 In this letter, the affiants state that they believe that the threat to their client's life was the result of his refusal to have XXXX circumcised, and because of his refusal to join IPOB.110 However, the RPD notes that there were several disparities between the information contained in the letter and the information stated by XXXX in his written and oral testimony. The first one is that the affiants mention the 2017 home attack and the kidnapping attempt and underscore that they were understood to be the result of XXXX rejection of both XXXX circumcision and his refusal to join IPOB. By contrast, XXXX had alleged that these events were not in any way related to the pressure that he

faced to have XXXX circumcised.111 The second inconsistency highlighted by the RPD is that the affiants underscore that the reasons for the threat to their client's life were "understood with the passage of time," which contradicts what the Appellants had alleged,112 namely that one of the men was heard shouting that this attack comes in response to XXXX refusal to join IPOB. Thirdly, the affidavit states that the house was substantially destroyed as a result of the attack, which contradicts XXXX testimony in which he mentions the windows of his home were damaged.113 Consequently, the RPD found the affidavit to be unreliable and gave it less weight.114 [72] A fourth affidavit was provided by XXXX lawyer.115 In it, the affiant states that he believes what the Principal Appellant told him, namely that the kidnapping attempt on his children was the result of his refusal to join IPOB. While the affiant mentions the attack on the Appellants' home and that the security guard was killed as a result, there is no mention that the attack was in any way the responsibility of IPOB. The RPD gave this affidavit less weight because it was based on what XXXX told him, and that there is no persuasive evidence to suggest that the attack on the home was, on a balance of probabilities, more than a random act of violence.116 [73] A fifth documentary evidence is the psychiatric report to which I

referred to earlier. In the report, the psychologist states that XXXX resisted the circumcision of his daughter and the recruitment by IPOB. The evaluator indicates that she bases her knowledge on what XXXX told her during the interview, and after having read his narrative provided to her by his Counsel.117 The RPD decided to give little weight to the psychological assessment because the Principal Appellant has not provided credible and reliable evidence in key areas of his claim.118 [74] On appeal, the Appellants submit that the RPD did not confront them with the concerns that it had about the probative value of these documents.119 They also allege that the panel erred in giving little weight to the content of the affidavits regarding central events to their claim, only because they were based on hearsay.120 [75] Regarding the psychiatric report, I find that the RPD erred when it did not pronounce itself on the information contained in the report and whether or not the panel finds that it corroborates or contradicts XXXX allegations. Just as the RPD assessed other pieces of evidence that the Appellants provided, and gave reasons for its decision to give little weight to these documents, I find that the RPD should have assessed the probative value of the psychological report. In this regard, I find that it was not sufficient for the RPD to make a blanket statement that it has

decided not to assign a probative value to this report due to a lack of credibility on the part of Appellants. It could very well be that after conducting this assessment, the RPD would have arrived at one and the same conclusion, namely that little or no probative value is to be given to the report. However, this conclusion by the RPD should, I find, come as a result of the assessment of the evidence, and not before the RPD has demonstrated that it has analyzed the probative value of this evidence. However, I do not find that this error is fatal to the correctness of the RPD's assessment of the credibility of the Appellants' claim, because the psychologist that she bases her knowledge on what XXXX described to him, as being the central events to his claim. Hence, I find that the report cannot be used to establish the facts before the RAD as the doctor who wrote the report did not witness the facts related to the case. [76] Now, with respect to the affidavits submitted by XXXX, I find that the RPD gave reasons for why it assigned little weight to them, namely that they recounted what the Principal Appellant had already stated.121 In addition, I take note that "the rules of procedural fairness do not require refugee claimants to be confronted about information that they are aware of and which they have, in addition, provided themselves."122 I therefore find that the RPD did not

err in its decision to assign little probative value to the aforementioned affidavits. (ii) Reasons Provided by the Appellants for the Lack of a Police Report [77] In its decision, the RPD found that it was incumbent on the Appellants to provide documentary evidence in support of their claim. The RPD did not find their explanation for why they did not submit a police report into evidence (when they filed a complaint with police authorities) persuasive. As a result, the RPD made a negative inference.123 [78] On appeal, the Appellants submit that the RPD erred because it did not consider the affidavit of XXXX lawyers, which attests that they had written a petition to the Nigerian police on XXXX behalf, and that they can attest that police authorities would be unable to provide adequate protection to the Principal Appellant's life and property.124 [79] I find that the RPD did not err in its conclusion that the explanation provided by the Appellants for their failure to provide a copy of the police report was unpersuasive. This is because, on the one hand, XXXX had alleged in his written testimony that he reported the different events that were central to the Appellants' claim to the police.125 These events include when he received the phone calls urging him to join IPOB,126 but that nothing came out of the report.127 XXXX also stated that, following the kidnapping attempt, his

lawyers filed a police report on his behalf.128 During the hearing, the RPD inquired whether or not XXXX had a copy of that report, to which he responded that he did not.129 At this point, the RPD cited extracts from the lawyers' affidavit in which they stated that they have filed a report with the police in relation to threats to his life and property. In the recording of the RPD hearing, I hear the panel asking XXXX to explain which event it is that the lawyers filed a report in relation to.130 In response, XXXX stated that his lawyers filed a police report in the aftermath of the kidnapping attempt and attack on his home. The RPD subsequently inquired why XXXX did not submit into evidence a copy of the police report, choosing instead to submit into evidence an affidavit by the lawyers who filed the report.131 In response, XXXX states that there was no particular reason, and that "I guess he didn't think to give me copy,"132 and that the affidavit corroborates everything that he needed.133 [80] I therefore do not agree with the Appellants' claim that the RPD did not consider the lawyers' affidavit. I also do not find that the RPD was obligated to presume that the assessment of the lawyer with respect of the availability of state protection to be correct. I also agree with the RPD that XXXX explanation, was not sufficiently persuasive as to why he would file a report from the lawyers who allegedly submitted the police report on his behalf, but not a copy of the actual police report. I therefore find that the RPD was correct in its decision to give the affidavit less weight.

CONCLUSION [81] I find that the RPD was correct in concluding that the Appellants have not established that there is a serious possibility of persecution by members of XXXX extended family as a result of the Appellants' refusal to have XXXX circumcised, or that on a balance of probabilities, the Appellants are persons that face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Nigeria for the reasons that they allege, including XXXX refusal to join IPOB.

DETERMINATION [82] 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 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Rouba Al-Salem Rouba Al-Salem February 4, 2020 Date RAS/in 1 XXXX was appointed as the designated representative of the Minor Associate Appellants. RPD Decision at para. 2. 2 Under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). 3 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant attached to the Basis of Claim Form (BOC) at p. 1. 4 RPD Oral hearing at 0:26:01. 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 6 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 15. 7 RPD Record, RPD Decision at paras. 19, 22 and 24. 8 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 15. 9 RPD Record, Amended Narrative of the Principal Appellant at p. 1. 10 RPD Oral hearing at 0:26:01; 0:26:35 and 0:30:40. 11 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 19. 12 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 12. 13 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 13. 14 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 15. 15 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 16. 16 RPD Oral hearing at 0:39:38. 17 RPD Oral hearing at 0:32:11. 18 RPD

Oral hearing at 0:33:22. 19 RPD Oral hearing at 0:33:34. 20 RPD Oral hearing at 0:34:34. 21 RPD Oral hearing at 0:37:35. 22 RPD Oral hearing at 0:37:42. 23 RPD Oral hearing at 0:35:02. 24 RPD Oral hearing at 0:36:35. 25 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 20. 26 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 21. 27 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 12. 28 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 13. 29 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 13. 30 RPD Record, p. 252 (material faxed on 3 January 2019). 31 Su v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 75. 32 Response to Information Request (RIR) (NGA106183.FE) "Nigeria: Whether Parents can Refuse Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) of their Daughter, State Protection Available (2016-October 2018), Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ottawa). The RIR was part of the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (21 December 2018) item 5.12 available to the Appellants (Exhibit 7) and remains part of the updated NDP for Nigeria (29 November 2019) as item 5.12. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 NDP for Nigeria (29 November 2019), item 5.16: "Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)", Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. August 2019. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. See NDP for Nigeria (21 December 2018) item 1.4: European Union. European Asylum Support Office

(EASO), Country of Origin Information Report: Nigeria. Country Focus. (June 2017). Available to the Appellants and which remains part of the updated NDP for Nigeria (29 November 2019) also as item 1.4. 39 Chan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] 3 FC 675. 40 RPD Record, Exhibit C-8. Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p 1. 41 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at pp. 1-2. 42 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p. 2. 43 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p. 2. 44 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p. 2-3. RPD Oral hearing at 01:19:50. 45 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p. 3. 46 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p.

3. RPD Oral hearing at 01:20:23. 47 RPD Oral hearing at 01:24:12. 48 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p.

3. RPD Oral hearing at 1:25:50. 49 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p.

3. RPD Oral hearing at 1:28:47 and 1:29:45. 50 RPD Oral hearing at 01:29:15. 51 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p.

3. RPD Oral hearing at 01:30:26. 52 RPD Oral hearing at. 01:41:42 53 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p.

4. RPD Oral hearing at 01:39:04, 1:43:05 and 02:00:00. 54 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p.

4. RPD Oral hearing at 02:02:41. 55 RPD Record, RPD Decision at paras. 25-52. 56 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 24. 57 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 53. 58 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 26. 59 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 31. 60 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 26. 61 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 39 62 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 41. 63 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 39. 64 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 18. 65 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 18. 66 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 31. 67 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p. 1. 68 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p.

2. RPD decision at para. 27. 69 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant at p.

2. RPD decision at para. 27. 70 RPD Oral hearing at 0:56:41 71 RPD Oral hearing at 0:56:47 72 RPD Oral hearing at 0:56:51. 73 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para.

28. RPD Oral hearing (12 March 2019) at 01:03:20. 74 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para.

28. RPD Oral hearing (12 March 2019) at 01:03:34. 75 RPD Oral hearing at 0:03:56. 76 RPD Oral hearing at 0:01:04:47. See also RPD decision at para. 30. 77 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para.

30. RPD Oral hearing (12 March 2019) at 01:04:06 and 01:04:25. 78 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 31. 79 RPD Oral hearing at 00:52: 80 RPD Oral hearing at 00:52:25 81 RPD Record, Amended narrative attached to the BOC at p. 2. 82 RPD Record, Amended narrative attached to the BOC at p.

2. RPD decision at para. 32 83 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 32. 84 RPD Record, Exhibit 7, Psychiatric Report. 85 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 19. 86 RPD Oral hearing at 01:12:12. 87 RPD Oral hearing at 01:12:15. 88 RPD Oral hearing at 01:12:32. 89 RPD Record, Exhibit 7, p. 4 90 RPD Record, Exhibit 7, at pp. 3-4. 91 RPD Record, Exhibit C-8, Letter of Recruitment. 92 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para.

35. RPD Oral hearing at 01:16:13. 93 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para.

36. RPD Oral hearing at 01:15:17. 94 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 20. 95 RPD Oral hearing at 01:16:51. 96 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 35. 97 RPD Record, RPD Decision at paras 34 and 36. RPD Oral hearing at 01:05:20. 98 RPD Record, Exhibit C-13 at p. 262 of the electronic RPD file. 99 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 33. 100 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 20. 101 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 33. 102 RPD Record, RPD Decision at paras. 35 and 36. 103 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 40. 104 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 41. 105 RPD Record, Exhibit 11. 106 RPD Record, Exhibit 11. See also RPD decision at para. 42. 107 RPD Record, Exhibit 8. 108 RPD Record, Exhibit 8. See also RPD decision at para. 43. 109 RPD Record, Exhibit 9. 110 RPD Record, Exhibit 9. See also RPD decision at para. 44. 111 RPD Record, Exhibit 9, at p.

1. See also RPD decision at para. 45. 112 RPD Record, Exhibit 9, at p.

1. See also RPD decision at para. 45. 113 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 45. 114 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 45. 115 RPD Record, Exhibit 9, at pp. 16-17. 116 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 48. 117 RPD Record, Exhibit 7, at p. 1. 118 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 52. 119 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, p. 21. 120 Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, p. 23. 121 Akanniolu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2019 FC 311. 122 Moïse v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 93, at paras. 9-10. 123 RPD Record, RPD Decision at para. 46. 124 RPD Record, Exhibit 9, at p. 204. 125 RPD Record, Principal Appellant's Narrative attached to the BOC. 126 RPD Oral hearing at 01:20:42. 127 RPD Record, Amended narrative of the Principal Appellant to the BOC, p. 3. 128 RPD Oral hearing at 01:23:14. 129 RPD Oral hearing at 01:23:23-01:23-27. 130 RPD Oral hearing at 01:21:58. 131 RPD Oral hearing at 02:18:39. See also RPD decision, at para. 46 132 RPD Oral hearing at 02:19:03 133 RPD Oral hearing at 02:19:25. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-16504 TB9-16505 / TB9-16506 / TB9-16507 TB9-16508 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