TB8-04889

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 File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-04889 TB8-04890 TB8-04891 TB8-04892 TB8-04893 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision September 14, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Robert Bebbington Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal David Matas Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Octavia Davidson Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) (the male Appellant), XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) (the female Appellant), XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX), XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX), and XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) (the minor Appellant(s)), citizens of Nigeria, appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated December 19, 2017, rejecting their claim(s) for refugee protection. The Appellants have submitted new evidence with the appeal in a Rule 29 Application to Submit Documents Not Previously Provided, and they request an oral hearing be held, pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The Appellants ask that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the RPD and substitute a decision with its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellants request that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD with a differently constituted panel. DETERMINATION [2] The RAD dismisses the appeals and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF APPEAL [3] The Appellants' allegations are put forth in their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.1 The Appellants allege that they cannot return safely to Nigeria because of an intense family dispute arising from the customary practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). They reside in Osogbo, Osun State, an area known for its extreme traditional beliefs and practices. The adult associated Appellant is from a traditional Osogbo family that strongly believes in the circumcision of female children. Ever since their daughter, XXXX (minor Appellant), was born in 2008, the adult Appellants have felt pressure from these relatives to have the circumcision performed. ROLE OF THE RAD [4] For questions of fact, law, and mixed fact and law, the RAD applies the standard of correctness in accordance with the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Huruglica.2 In assessing findings involving the credibility of oral testimony, the RAD may apply the modified standard of reasonableness in situations where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage.3 Unless otherwise stated in the reasons, the RAD applies the correctness standard on all findings, and the RAD will consider the overall refugee determination on a standard of correctness, even where the RAD has deferred on some or all findings. ANALYSIS [5] The Memorandum, applicable to this appeal for the most part, is broad and generalized; whereas, in compliance with RAD Rule 3(3)(g)4, an Appellant is required to make full and detailed submissions with respect to the errors the RPD is alleged to have made and the location of those errors. It is submitted that errors "touch on": (a) error in not considering all possible grounds for claiming refugee status; (b) error in not applying the correct test for persecution; (c) error in not assessing and analysing the harm posed from identified agents of persecution. Member ignored and rejected evidence; (d) error in preferring the documentary evidence over the appellant's testimony; and (e) error in not making an independent assessment of s. 97. However, all of these "errors" are non-specific: for example, if there was an alleged error in applying the correct test for persecution, the Appellant needs to be specific about the error or what documentary evidence did the RPD prefer over the appellant's testimony. Although some case law is cited, the fact remains that the requirements of RAD Rule 3(3)(g) have not been met. [6] The Memorandum filed in this appeal contains a random collection of assorted legal principles and case law which are not appeal specific. Various general errors are alleged on the part of the RPD, but where these errors occur in the current case remains unspecified. For example, it is submitted that the RPD ignored the Appellant's oral testimony, and the RPD should not have disbelieved the Appellant merely because there was no evidence to support it. It is also submitted that the RPD erred in law for failing to provide good reasons to prefer some documentary evidence over other evidence. All of these submissions are vague and non-specific and do not address specific errors made by the RPD. As a result, they are not compliant with RAD Rule 3(3)(g). [7] Despite the broad and generalized Memorandum and its problems in complying with RAD Rule 3(3)(g), the RAD has determined that, after its own review and assessment of the evidence, it can identify a determinative issue that was addressed on the record in this appeal. The RAD finds that the parameters of an IFA were fully discussed on the record, and submissions on IFA were provided by Counsel for the Appellants before the RPD. The RAD finds the determinative issue in this appeal is IFA [8] The RAD has the power to confirm or substitute the determination of the RPD under paragraphs 111(1)(a) and 111(1)(b) of the IRPA, respectively, or send the matter back under paragraph 111(1)(c) if the conditions in subsection 111(1)(2) are met. In confirming a determination, just as in substituting, the RAD is not bound by the reasoning in the RPD's decision. This is evident from the use of the word "determination" in paragraphs 111(1)(a) and (b). Further, the restrictions on remittal in subsection 111(2) suggest that Parliament's intent was to have the RAD finalize refugee protection claims where it can do so fairly, including by confirming a determination on alternative grounds. This analysis is consistent with the recent Federal Court decision in Huruglica.5 [9] The RAD further notes that additional evidence was submitted in this appeal after the receipt of the Appellants' Record. The RAD will first assess the evidence before carrying on to the analysis of the appeal. RULE 29 Application to Submit Documents Not Previously Provided [10] On January 22, 2018, the Appellants submitted additional evidence in support of their appeal.6 The Appellants submit that the new evidence falls under the provisions of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA because it was dated as produced after the rejection of the Appellants' claims. The RAD also notes that this document was tendered after the submission of the Appellants' Record. Rule 29 of the RAD Rules states that: 29 (1) A person who is the subject of an appeal who does not provide a document or written submissions with the appellant's record, respondent's record or reply record must not use the document or provide the written submissions in the appeal unless allowed to do so by the Division. Application (2) If a person who is the subject of an appeal wants to use a document or provide written submissions that were not previously provided, the person must make an application to the Division in accordance with rule 37. Documents - new evidence (3) The person who is the subject of the appeal must include in an application to use a document that was not previously provided an explanation of how the document meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Act and how that evidence relates to the person, unless the document is being presented in response to evidence presented by the Minister. [11] In this case, the Appellant has not made an application to tender documents not previously tendered in accordance with rule 37 of the RAD Rules. [12] The RAD has considered these documents, pursuant to the factors in Rule 29(4). Subsection 29(4) of the RAD Rules states that: (4) In deciding whether to allow an application, the Division must consider any relevant factors, including (a) the document's relevance and probative value; (b) any new evidence the document brings to the appeal; and (c) whether the person who is the subject of the appeal, with reasonable effort, could have provided the document or written submissions with the appellant's record, respondent's record or reply record. [13] The RAD has considered the three affidavits as well as the article submitted and notes there is no explanation from the Appellants as to how the evidence meets the factors outlined in Rule 29(4). The RAD notes that there are three requirements to be addressed, and the Appellants have not provided any explanation on any of the three prongs of Rule 29(4). The Appellants have simply stated that the proposed new evidence meets the requirement of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, because the date on the face of the documents arises after the rejection of the Appellants' claims for refugee protection. [14] The RAD has examined the documents and finds that they are stamped with an issuing date of January 5, 2017. The RAD notes that the Appellants' Record was received by the RAD on January 11, 2018. The RAD notes that the Appellants' information submitted in the Rule 29 application is dated January 9, 2018. The RAD finds that the Appellants have not provided any explanation as to why as set out in Rule 29(4), subsection "c", the Appellants were unable to provide the document or written submissions with the Appellants' Record. [15] The RAD finds that the Appellants were well aware of their obligations to obtain documentation to support their claims. If there was a significant reason that they were unable to submit the documents with the Appellants' Record, they have not adequately expressed that to the RAD. The RAD finds the Appellants' application to submit new evidence fails under the provisions of Rule 29(4)(c) of the RAD rules. Because these documents do not pass the tests set out in 29(4), the RAD finds there is no need to go on to consider the remaining factors in 110(4) of the IRPA. [16] Alternatively, the RAD has considered if it were to admit the Appellants' new evidence, it must further meet the requirements as set out in subsection 110(4). The RAD finds that the analysis, as set out in Raza,7 is not entirely appropriate for the purpose of assessing evidence submitted to the RAD. In this regard, the RAD is guided by the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Singh.8 Accordingly, the RAD has adapted the analysis in Raza9 to the assessment of evidence submitted to the RAD. [17] The RAD has reviewed the affidavits submitted in evidence and notes as much as they are produced on January 5, 2018, the RAD finds the three affidavits address issues directly associated with the Appellants' claim before the RPD. The RAD notes that these issues were fully canvased on the record. The Appellants, in their submissions, do not indicate that the affidavits contain new evidence, but they state that they are submitted to cure the defect in the refugee claim before the Refugee Protection Division. [18] The RAD notes that the adapted analysis in Raza10 sets out a series of considerations. The RAD finds that two of these factors apply in this situation: (a) The RAD will consider not only the date on which the document came into existence, but the timing of the event or circumstance which the document seeks to prove.11 For example, an affidavit or newspaper article may have been created after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, but the information in the document may be several years old, and the RAD may therefore find that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the claim, despite the date of the document. (b) If the RAD finds that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim and that it was reasonably available at the time of the rejection, it must consider the final part of the subsection 110(4) test: could the Appellant reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the evidence prior to the rejection of his refugee claim? If so, the evidence need not be considered.12 [19] The RAD finds that the Appellants have not provided an explanation as to why they could not have obtained the additional affidavits for submission at the RPD hearing or if they realized the need for additional evidence during the hearing, why no application was made to submit the documents as a post-hearing submission. [20] The RAD finds that, if it were to alternatively consider admitting the affidavits as new evidence, they would fail to meet the basic statutory requirement of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA and not be admissible as new evidence in this appeal. [21] The RAD has also alternatively considered the admission of the article13 addressing aspects of FGM. The RAD finds that, as much as the article is dated as being produced on December 28, 2017, the information contained in the article is not new. It simply confirms information that is already present in the record. The RAD finds that, as outlined previously, the article does not meet the basic statutory requirement of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, and it is not admissible as new evidence in this appeal. [22] The RAD has fully considered the Appellants' Rule 29 Application to Submit Documents Not Previously Provided and finds the application is denied. Request for an Oral Hearing [23] According to subsection 110(6), upon which the Appellants rely, the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellants, that is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. The Appellants have submitted no admissible new evidence in support of their appeal. As such, the RAD must proceed without a hearing on the basis of the RPD's record, and the application for an oral hearing is denied. Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) [24] The RPD suggested to the Appellants that a viable IFA exists in Lagos in Nigeria. The Appellants argued that they have active hobbies which involve the use of Facebook, and this would allow them to be found by the female Appellant's family. The RAD is not persuaded by the argument of the Appellants. [25] In assessing an IFA, the RAD must apply a two-pronged test cited in the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Rasaratnam:14 1) the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA. 2) moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claim, for the claimant to seek refuge there. [26] Both prongs must be satisfied to find that the Appellant has an IFA. Once the issue of IFA has been raised and the potential IFAs have been identified, the burden of proof rests with the Appellants to show that they do not have an IFA. The finding of an IFA must be based on a distinct evaluation of a region taking into account the Appellants' identities. An IFA must be a realistic and attainable option. The Appellants cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or to undergo undue hardship in traveling there or staying there.15 [27] While an analysis of whether a particular appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA under the first prong of the Rasaratnam test is necessarily fact-specific, the RAD is aware that, as a general principle, Canadian courts have held that large urban areas cannot be assumed to be an IFA by virtue of their population size alone16 and that the distance between the proposed IFA and the location of the persecutors does not in itself serve to establish that the proposed IFA is viable.17 That said, the IFA need not be far away from where the Appellants have previously lived: the concept of an IFA does not require that the safe haven be in another city or province than the place of origin so long as it is truly an area in which the Appellants can seek refuge from the persecution experienced in their home district.18 Ultimately, the question of whether an appellant has shown, that they face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA will turn on their evidence, keeping in mind the general principles above. First Prong [28] The Appellants have testified that they fear the family of the female Appellant in Osogbo, Osun State in Nigeria, who are seeking to subject the associated minor Appellant (XXXX XXXX) to FGM. The Appellants submit their daughter is at serious risk, and they will be subjected to ridicule in the community; hence, they cannot safely remain in Nigeria. [29] Although against the law and in decline, FGM continues to be practiced with differing prevalence rates and type across Nigeria and differing by ethnic group, religion, residence (urban/rural), state, education and socio-economic class. A 2013 UNICEF report found that 27% of women had undergone FGM, although in the last 20 years the prevalence among adolescent girls has dropped by a half.19 The RAD further notes that the Appellants' home area, Osun State, has some of the highest incidences of FGM.20 [30] The United Kingdom Home Office Operational Guidance Note for Nigeria21 states that Nigeria is a large country with a population of over 170 million, covering an area of over 900,000 sq km. The Nigerian constitution provides for the right to travel within Nigeria. The report also states that internal relocation to escape ill-treatment from non-state agents is almost always an option and, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it would not be unduly harsh for any individual to internally relocate. The Profile of the Agent of Persecution [31] The RAD has reviewed the record as well as the Appellants' testimonies. The RAD notes that the Appellants did not advance any persuasive evidence to confirm that the female Appellant's family has any special skills or access to state records to locate the Appellants. The singular incident described by the Appellants as an effort to "kidnap" their daughter from their home and school on April 21, 2016 took place in the Appellants' home area, and it was unsuccessful. [32] The RAD notes that documentary evidence states: ... The Women's Rights Watch Nigeria project coordinator indicated that parents can refuse to have FGM performed on their daughters since they play a major role in such decision-making. The CWSI representative similarly indicated that "nobody will walk into [somebody else's] home" to perform FGM on their daughters and that "parents are free to refuse it". Okeke also indicated that parents can refuse to have FGM performed on their daughters, especially if both parents agree. However, she pointed out that, in cases where the mother opposes FGM for her daughter but the father and his family support it, they will perform FGM in the mother's absence or "intimidate her into allowing [it to be performed on her daughter]". ...22 [citations omitted] [33] The RAD notes that both parents in this instance are opposed to FGM and, as the documents indicate, simple refusal to have it performed can be effective. The RAD further notes that the most recent documentary evidence confirms the viability of Lagos as an IFA location. The document confirms that the risk of being exposed to FGM and the safety for the Appellants is better in Lagos: ... The source noted that "FGM is not prevalent in Lagos at all". In correspondence with the Research Directorate, a professor of African history at Brock University, whose research interests include religion and gender relations in Nigeria, similarly stated that Lagos is "urban" and "western," adding that "residents of Lagos could refuse FGM. They are simply too far away from their ancestral towns/villages and from familial pressure". In correspondence with the Research Directorate, a lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of Ibadan, whose research interests include Nigerian social issues like FGM, similarly expressed the opinion that "Lagos is the most modernized and the most legally developed state in Nigeria". [...] ... According to the Professor of African history, "FGM [in Lagos State] is dying out". The Lecturer likewise stated that [w]hile very reliable data may not be readily available due to common data gaps in Africa, experiences and observations suggest there has been drastic reduction of FGM in Nigeria and much more in Lagos. This reduction is certainly expected to be so due to increasing education, enabling laws and advocacy in Lagos by the government and civil societies. Residents of Lagos are expected to adhere to the policies and laws regardless of the state of origin.23 [citations omitted] [34] The RAD has reviewed the available documentary evidence as well as the audio recording of the hearing. The RAD notes that, in order to target the Appellants in Lagos, the agent of persecution would be required to: 1) Learn the Appellants have returned to Nigeria; 2) Learn the Appellants have relocated to Lagos; and 3) Determine the whereabouts of the Appellants in the IFA location. [35] The RAD finds it reasonable to expect that, if an individual or organization was of sufficient strength and reach to be able to learn of a person's return to Nigeria or their presence in any city in the country, there would be objective evidence to support this. The RAD finds there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the first prong of the Rasaratnam test. The Second Prong [36] The RAD considered the reasonableness of the proposed IFAs. The test for reasonableness is whether it would be unduly harsh to expect the claimant to move to another, less hostile part of the country before seeking status abroad. This requires an evaluation of the conditions in the IFA as well as the Appellants or similarly situated persons. Thirunavukkarasu24 sets a very high threshold for what makes an IFA unreasonable in all the circumstances. The hardship associated with dislocation and relocation is not the kind of undue hardship that renders an IFA unreasonable.25 For example, it is not enough for the Appellant to say that he or she does not like the weather there, or that he or she has no friends or relatives there, or that he or she may not be able to find suitable work there.26 [37] The RPD stated that when it considered the Appellants' particular circumstances, it was objectively reasonable for them to reside in Lagos. The RAD notes that the Appellants did not advance any testimony or provide reasons in their memorandum as to why they could not reside in the proposed IFA location beyond their fear of the agents of persecution. [38] The Appellants argued before the RPD that their hobbies or casual business both require the Appellants to utilize Facebook as a marketing tool. The RPD found that the Appellants' explanation that he is a XXXX XXXX and his wife an online XXXX, and that this would lead to them being found by the agents of persecution in Lagos, detracted from their allegations of fear and harm of FGM for the minor Appellant. The RAD notes that the Appellants did not contest this finding in their Memorandum. [39] The RAD notes that, in reference to his use of Facebook, the male Appellant testified that he was unable to provide updated information about the impact of a "XXXX XXXX against FGM" that he had organized because he and his wife had discontinued their Facebook activities prior to departing Nigeria in order to avoid controversy with authorities and family over their stance against FGM. The RAD further notes that, when challenged by the Minister's Representative in submissions to the RPD, the male Appellant minimized the female Appellant's use of Facebook stating, "Is she employed? NO. Was she a full house wife? YES. It was a matter of unstructured way to keep her busy at home."27 [40] The RAD finds on its review of the evidence that the Appellants' own testimony confirms they have discontinued the use of Facebook because of their fear of harm while in Nigeria. The RAD finds this serves as confirmation that the Appellants recognize that discontinuing the use of Facebook when weighed against their daughter's safety and well-being is a reasonable step. The RAD further finds that the Appellants have provided no persuasive evidence that the use of Facebook is essential to their survival in Nigeria. The RAD supports the finding of the RPD in this instance and finds it is reasonable to expect the Appellants to continue their current practice of avoiding the use of Facebook. [41] The RAD notes: (a) The male Appellant has XXXX XXXX XXXX years of education culminating with diplomas in XXXX XXXX and an XXXX XXXX XXXX.28 (b) The male Appellant has extensive work experience as a XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX for a large multinational company.29 (c) The male Appellant confirmed in his testimony and documents that he has resided for many years through the week in Lagos and maintained an apartment there. "I work from Lagos ... I go home every weekend".30 The RAD finds that the male Appellant's familiarity with Lagos would assist in resettlement of the family. (d) The female Appellant has XXXX years of education, culminating in XXXX years of college. (e) The Appellants are experienced international travellers. They testified to having travelled on multiple occasions to the United Kingdom (UK) and the US. (f) The Appellants have confirmed in their testimony that they have experience in navigating the immigration system of various countries. They have travelled to both the UK and the US in order to give birth to two children and establish a base for citizenship. (g) They travelled to Canada and resettled without any reported problems. [42] Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, the RAD finds that the Appellants could live in the proposed IFA city without fear or the need to hide. If the Appellants do not inform family members of their presence in these cities, there is no reason to believe that their location would be discovered. The RAD notes that Lagos is a large city of greater than thirteen million people31 located a substantial distance from their home state. [43] The Appellants provided no persuasive evidence that they would be unfamiliar with cultural issues and norms in Lagos, as the male Appellant has extensive experience, having resided in Lagos five days a week for many years. [44] Based on the totality of the evidence, the RAD finds that the record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding that an IFA in Lagos is accessible to the Appellants. [45] Once the issue of an internal flight alternative is raised, the onus is on the refugee claimant to show that the option does not exist, by establishing that either prong of the two tests cited in the Rasaratnam32 criteria is not met. The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that there is not a serious possibility of persecution of the Appellants in that city identified as the IFA. Accordingly, the RAD finds that the Appellants have not satisfied their burden of establishing that there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or that, they would be personally subjected to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture in the IFA location. Disposition [46] The RAD finds that there is an IFA for the Appellants. Since IFA is a determinative issue, the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. CONCLUSION [47] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD and dismisses the appeals. (signed) "Robert Bebbington" Robert Bebbington September 14, 2018 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 2, pp. 13-26, 31-66. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 3 X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 4 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257, IRPA. 5 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, pp. 17-22. 7 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385. 8 Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96. 9 Supra footnote 5, Raza, 2007 FCA 385. 10 Supra footnote 5, Raza, 2007 FCA 385. 11 Supra footnote 5, Raza, para. 16. 12 Supra footnote 5, Raza, para. 13.5(a). 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, pp. 21-22. 14 Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991. Reported: Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minster of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at p. 710. 15 Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993. Reported: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.), pp. 596-599. 16 Reynoso, Edith Isabel Guardian v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2110-94), Muldoon, January 29, 1996. 17 Cadena Ramirez, Francisco José v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5911-09), Rennie, December 20, 2010, 2010 FC 1276. 18 Jilani, Zia Uddin Ahmed v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-711-07), Mosley, December 21, 2007, 2007 FC 1354, para 13. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (31 March 2017), item 1.11 United Kingdom Home Office, "Country Information and Guidance, Nigeria: Women fearing gender-based harm or violence", August 2016, at p. 6, paragraph 2.3.7. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 8, pp. 319-321. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (31 March 2017), item 1.7, United Kingdom Home Office, "Country Information and Guidance, Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation", August 2016, at p. 5, paragraph 2.2.3. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (31 March 2017), item 5.12, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA104220.E, 21 November 2012. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (31 March 2017), item 5.28, IRB, RIR NGA105628.E, 13 September 2016. 24 Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993; [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.), at 596-599. 25 M.C.I. v. Ranganathan, Rohini (F.C.A., no. A-348-99), Létourneau, Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000. 26 Supra footnote 23, Thirunavukkarasu v. M.E.I., [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.), at 596-599. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 7, at p. 274. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 1, p. 88. 29 Ibid., p. 88. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 7, p. 274. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, NDP for Nigeria (31 March 2017), item 1.6, United States, Central Intelligence Agency, "Nigeria: The World Factbook", 10 November 2016. 32 Supra footnote 13, Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I., [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at p. 710. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-04889 TB8-04890 TB8-04891 TB8-04892 TB8-04893 17 RAD.25.02 (August 08, 2018) Disponible en français