TB9-13145

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-13145 TB9-13146 / TB9-13147 / TB9-13148 TB9-13149 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 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 18, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Susan Brown Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Matthew Tubie Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Appellants, XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant), her adult daughter XXXX XXXX XXXX, and her minor children XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, citizens of Nigeria, appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated May 9, 2019, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. The Principal Appellant was appointed the designated representative of her minor children. [2] The Appellants fear their husband/father's extended family who seek to circumcise the female Appellants by force. The RPD found that the Appellants' fear is not well-founded and that they have a viable IFA in Benin City. The Appellants submit that the RPD erred in both findings. Following my independent review, I find that IFA is the determinative issue and the Appellants have a viable IFA in Benin City, so I dismiss the appeals. BACKGROUND [3] According to their Basis of Claim Forms (BOCs),1 the Appellants were born in 1972, 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2007. [4] During the naming ceremony of the adult female Appellant, who was the first granddaughter in the family, the Principal Appellant and her husband were taken aside by three elderly women from her husband's family who told them that "all females born and married to the family must undergo circumcision and cleansing to prevent any evil befalling the family." They were also told that the preparations for the circumcision begin when the child is seven years old and the circumcision takes place between the ages eight and seventeen. The Principal Appellant's husband told the women that he had never heard of this tradition and that he would not allow circumcision and female genital mutilation (FGM) to be performed on his children. [5] The following day, the Principal Appellant's husband called his Aunt XXXX, a powerful and influential woman who had XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Aunt XXXX told the Principal Appellant's husband that she has been trying to stop the practice of FGM since the Principal Appellant's husband's older sister died as a result of an infection following circumcision. The following month, Aunt XXXX called a family meeting in Warri and reminded the family of the death of the Principal Appellant's husband's sister following circumcision. Aunt XXXX warned that if they threatened or harassed the Principal Appellant's family again, then she would have them arrested. [6] The Appellants were not harassed again by their husband/father's family until Aunt XXXX died on XXXX XXXX, 2016. A few weeks after the death of his Aunt XXXX, the Principal Appellant's husband was called to a family meeting. His Uncle XXXX, the new head of the family, insisted on the circumcision of the female Appellants. He said that if it was not done, the long tradition would be extinct and this would bring shame and disgrace to the family. Uncle XXXX blamed the Principal Appellant for her husband's refusal to follow the tradition. The Principal Appellant's husband became angry and told his family that he would not allow the female Appellants to be circumcised. [7] The Principal Appellant's parents said that they would not interfere. The Principal Appellant's father told her that they would pray and that they believed that as long as her husband is not in support of the circumcision, then God would help them out. The Principal Appellant's pastor advised her to send the older female Appellants out of the country as there is no place they can hide because the family has broad influence, politically and economically. The Appellants' initial move to Lagos did not solve anything as they were followed. The Principal Appellant obtained study permits for Canada for the two oldest female Appellants and visitor visas for the rest. The two oldest female Appellants were enrolled in school in Fort McMurray, Alberta in XXXX of 2016. [8] When the Principal Appellant's husband's family learned about the oldest female Appellants being in Canada, they sent the Principal Appellant a threatening message to produce the oldest female Appellants within 30 days. Afterwards there were incessant attacks, including destruction of their properties and a failed kidnapping attempt. The Principal Appellant and her husband went to the police to file a complaint, but the police just told them to go home and resolve the issue since it was a family matter. [9] One night as they were getting ready to attend a church service, there was banging on their door. The Principal Appellant saw some elders and youth at the door, and hid with the minor Appellants in an apartment at the back of the house. The elders and youth threatened the Principal Appellant's husband and demanded he bring the female Appellants for the circumcision by the next annual festival. Following the attack, the Appellants went to the church to sleep overnight. [10] The Principal Appellant's husband decided to send the rest of his family to Canada for their safety. The Principal Appellant left her government job and her son had to leave school where he had been given a very valuable scholarship. [11] The oldest female Appellants arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and their claims for protection were received on September 14, 2018. The other Appellants left Nigeria on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, arrived in Canada the next day and their claims for protection were received on December 11, 2017. The Appellants' claims were heard on February 27, 2019 and the RPD gave its decision on May 9, 2019. STANDARD OF RAD REVIEW [12] The RAD reviews decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it. The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing and weighing the oral testimony heard, which in particular cases attracts deference.2 Unless specifically stated below, I have applied the correctness standard. ANALYSIS [13] I find that the determinative issue is the viability of an IFA for the Appellants in Benin City. Following my own review of the record, the testimony of the Principal Appellant, the submissions of the Appellants and applying the framework of assessment outlined in the IFA Jurisprudential Guide,3 I find, for the reasons outlined below, that Benin City is a viable IFA for the Appellants. Preamble: IFA in Nigeria [14] Pursuant to section 159(1) (h) of the IRPA, the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board has identified a RAD decision4 (IFA Jurisprudential Guide) as a jurisprudential guide which addresses internal flight alternatives in major cities in south and central Nigeria for claimants fleeing non-state actors. This preamble is adapted from the IFA Jurisprudential Guide and sets out a framework for the assessment of IFA in Nigeria, generally, and specifically in south and central Nigeria where Benin City is located. [15] The Federal Court has recently found that this IFA Jurisprudential Guide does not unlawfully fetter Board members' discretion or improperly encroach upon their adjudicative independence because it repeatedly refers to the need for each case to be adjudicated on the basis of its particular facts.5 The Federal Court has made it clear that the IFA Jurisprudential Guide is only a guide and is not binding. [16] The test for assessing an IFA is two-pronged and is set out in the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Rasaratnam:6 (1) The Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA. (2) Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claim, for him to seek refuge there.7 [17] Both prongs must be satisfied to find that an appellant has an IFA. Once the issue of IFA has been raised and the potential IFAs have been identified, the burden of proof rests with an appellant to show that they do not have an IFA. The finding of an IFA must be based on a distinct evaluation of the region for that purpose, taking into account the appellant's personal circumstances. An IFA must be a realistic and attainable option. The appellant cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or undergo undue hardship in travelling there and staying there. [18] IFA in Nigeria is often considered by the RPD and RAD. After reviewing the relevant country documentation and jurisprudence, internal relocation in Nigeria is generally considered to be viable for refugee claimants and appellants fearing non-state actors. This framework applies to many types of claims from Nigeria where the stated fear is of non-state agents. The Federal Court has recently upheld determinative findings of viable IFAs in Nigeria in cases where the alleged fear is related to allegations of, for example, witchcraft,8 female genital mutilation (or the refusal to submit one's child to such mutilation),9 forced participation in rituals,10 Boko Haram, threats of domestic violence at the hands of a former partner, Fulani herdsmen, and kidnappers.11 [19] The UK Home Office Country Information and Guidance report for Nigeria states that where the person's fear is of persecution or serious harm at the hands of non-state agents, "relocation to another area of Nigeria is likely to be generally viable depending on the nature of the threat from non-state agents and individual circumstances of the person, and as long as it would not be unduly harsh to expect them to do so."12 [20] In addition, the UK Home Office Country Information and Guidance report for women fearing gender-based harm or violence in Nigeria states, "In general, it will not be unduly harsh for a woman to internally relocate to escape localized threats from members of their family or other non-state actors, especially if single and without children to support, but the individual circumstances of each case will need to be taken into account."13 [21] The documentation indicates that there are several very large, multilingual, multiethnic cities in south and central Nigeria, such as Lagos (population 13.123 million), Kano (3.587 million), Ibadan (3.16 million), the capital of Abuja (2.44 million), Port Harcourt (2.343 million), and Benin City (1.496 million),14 where persons fleeing non-state actors may be able to safely establish themselves, depending on their own particular circumstances. [22] While an analysis of whether a particular appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA under the first prong of the Rasaratnam test is necessarily fact-specific, as a general principle, Canadian courts have held that large urban areas cannot be assumed to be an IFA by virtue of their population size alone,15 and that the distance between the proposed IFA and the location of the persecutors does not in itself serve to establish that the proposed IFA is viable.16 That said, the IFA need not be far away from where the appellant has previously lived: the concept of an IFA does not require that the safe haven be in another city or province than the place of origin so long as it is truly an area in which the appellant can seek refuge from the persecution experienced in their home district.17 Ultimately, the question of whether an appellant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that they face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA will turn on their evidence, keeping in mind the general principles above. [23] In respect of analyzing the reasonableness of a proposed IFA, a general framework for analyzing reasonableness in the large urban centres in the south of Nigeria which are commonly referenced as potential IFAs could be useful, which of course would still require the necessary consideration of any particular appellant's specific circumstances and allegations, as discussed below. As a starting point, the Federal Court of Appeal has held that there is: ...a very high threshold for the unreasonableness test. It requires nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area. In addition, it requires actual and concrete evidence of such conditions. The absence of relatives in a safe place, whether taken alone or in conjunction with other factors, can only amount to such condition if it meets that threshold, that is to say if it establishes that, as a result, a claimant's life or safety would be jeopardized. This is in sharp contrast with undue hardship resulting from loss of employment, loss of status, reduction in quality of life, loss of aspirations, loss of beloved ones and frustration of one's wishes and expectations. The Court has reiterated the importance of not lowering that threshold.18 [24] There are a range of issues that inform the analysis of reasonableness of a proposed IFA with respect to any particular appellant, the most common and prominent of which include: transportation and travel, language, education and employment, accommodation, religion, indigeneship status, and the availability of medical and mental healthcare. In addition, the Gender Guideline19 specifically instructs that decision-makers should "take into account facts including religious, economic and cultural factors, and consider whether and how these factors affect women in the IFA." Each factor is reviewed below as it relates generally to Nigeria, before applying the factors to an appellant's specific circumstances in the proposed IFA. [25] Transportation and Travel: In analyzing the viability of a proposed IFA, consideration must be given to the Gender Guideline,20 which states in part: "in determining the reasonableness of a woman's recourse to an internal flight alternative (IFA), decision-makers should consider the ability of women, because of their gender, to travel safely to the IFA and to stay there without facing undue hardship." Nigeria is a large country with an area of over 900,000 square kilometres in 36 states, and a population of over 170 million people. Nigerians have the right to reside in any part of the country.21 The documentary evidence shows that all main centres are linked by road; in addition, many of the large urban centres boast international airports,22 which mitigate in favour of viability of the proposed IFA in terms of transit and travel for a given appellant without facing undue hardship. [26] Language: English is the official language in Nigeria, and a large percentage of the population speak Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo (Ibo), and Fulani in the major centres, in addition to over 500 indigenous languages.23 The documents note that in public administration, English is the generally accepted language of federal agencies, both in correspondence and in oral communications, because of the wide variety of languages in the country.24 Fluency in one or more of these languages will mitigate against a finding of unreasonableness due to a language barrier in an IFA where an appellant speaks English or the regional languages of Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo (Ibo), and/or Fulani, as appropriate. [27] Education and Employment: While the documentary evidence notes that women face considerable economic discrimination in Nigeria, it also notes that women who are educated and who have a higher social status are more likely to gain employment, and that ethnicity is less of a factor for obtaining work in the South than it is in the North.25 It is worth noting that the total years of education completed on average for Nigerian men is nine years, whereas for women it is eight years.26 Thus, where an appellant has achieved post-secondary education or has meaningful work experience, they may be in a better position than the average Nigerian in terms of securing employment, where such opportunities exist. [28] Accommodation: The documentary evidence indicates that rent can be steep in locations like Ibadan, Port Harcourt and Lagos where the cost of living is high, increasing the challenges for female-headed households without male support to obtain housing.27 The personal circumstances of any particular appellant may make accommodation more or less viable, for instance, where they are able to access support of immediate or extended family or other social networks in or near the IFA who are sympathetic to the appellant's situation, as established by the evidence in any particular case. Access to accommodation is but one factor of several for decision-makers to consider in assessing the reasonableness of a proposed IFA in light of an appellant's individual circumstances. The burden remains on the appellant to demonstrate that the proposed IFA is unreasonable or unduly harsh in their particular case. [29] Religion: The documents indicate that across Nigeria "approximately 50 percent of the population is Muslim and 50 percent Christian," and that they reside in approximately equal numbers in central and southwestern Nigeria.28 Indeed, another source notes that "Muslims and Christians 'live everywhere across the country...'" and that when it comes to the issue of relocation of Christians from the North to large cities such as Port Harcourt in the South, "language and culture would be more important than religion."29 Therefore, when an appellant holds a meaningful affiliation to one of these religions, access to places of worship and other people who share their religious values may weigh in favour of an IFA in that it provides an avenue to establish or develop a social structure tied to the appellant's religious beliefs. [30] Indigeneship: Although the evidence is mixed, it is clear that due to significant migration to large, urban cities, indigeneship is not a significant barrier to relocation in these cities. Objective evidence provides information on point, which states: ...indigeneship status is less important in big cities such as Lagos, Abuja, and Port Harcourt than it is in other places, in terms of access to public jobs or ownership of land, because the indigene population in these areas has been "overwhelmed" by migrants to the cities. He explained, for example, that the establishment of the Federal Capital Territory pushed the indigenes of Abuja further from the "centre of influence." However, he also indicated that indigenous ethnic groups continue to dominate the market for land in Lagos, and that indigenes of the Niger Delta, including in Port Harcourt, have been demanding a greater allocation of jobs in the region's oil industry. Non-indigenes also face discrimination in the field of politics. Nevertheless, the Professor stated that, in other industries, they can generally find work where there is a demand for it.30 [citations omitted] [31] Notably, the source indicated that in other industries, there is a general ability to find work so long as there is demand, without ethnicity or indigeneship hindering this aspect of integration. Therefore, the burden is on an appellant to show that any discrimination that could be faced in Nigeria's large cities in the south on the basis of their ethnicity or non-indigeneship would rise to the level that it would render the proposed IFAs unreasonable or unduly harsh. [32] Availability of Medical and Mental Health Care: Where an appellant advances an argument about the availability of medical and mental health care, due attention will have to be given to whether availability and access to such care would render the proposed IFA unreasonable or unduly harsh in the appellant's particular circumstances. Documents in the National Documentation Package indicate that citizens must pay for services such as healthcare and education, although access to such services can be "difficult for all," in the sense that the difficulty may be affording healthcare and education.31 These difficulties appear to affect all Nigerians, and again, the burden is on the appellant to show that such considerations in their case would rise to a level that would render the proposed IFA objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in their particular circumstances. [33] It is settled law that the concept of an IFA is an inherent part of the Convention refugee definition because a claimant must be a refugee from a country, not from a particular region of a country.32 Thus, the existence of an IFA is fatal to any refugee claim.33 [34] The RPD found the facts and legal issues in this case sufficient similar to those in the IFA Jurisprudential Guide as it addresses IFA in major cities in south and central Nigeria for claimants fleeing non-state actors.34 As detailed below, I find that the RPD correctly used the IFA Jurisprudential Guide to guide its IFA assessment and that it clearly adjudicated this case on the basis of its particular facts. [35] The RPD correctly identified and considered the two-pronged IFA test35 and complied with the procedural requirements to raise IFA before or during the hearing. The RPD identified IFA as an issue at the outset of the hearing36 and later specified Lagos, Abuja, Benin City and Ibadan as potential IFAs.37 First prong of the IFA test: no serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA [36] With respect to the first prong of the IFA test, the RPD found that there was insufficient evidence that the Appellants' whereabouts in the suggested IFAs could be discovered by their husband?fathers' family. The RPD also found that any status the in-laws may have in Nigeria has not been established and neither has their interest in pursuing the Appellants. The RPD concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellants could relocate to Benin City without the in-laws discovering their whereabouts.38 [37] The Appellants make the following arguments: * The Principal Appellant testified that her husband?s family and the uncle identified were influential and will stop at nothing to get her to produce her daughters for circumcision in accordance with the practices of the people;39 * The RPD failed to consider the affidavit of the Principal Appellant's mother40 which identified and confirmed the risks but was ignored by the RPD because it came from a close family member; * The RPD erred in relying on the size of Benin City to show difficulty in persecuting the Appellants; and * "Human intelligence surpasses door to door search (which is not the realty ?sic?) for the applicant. In the age of social media the applicant will certainly have difficulty hiding and establishing herself in Benin-City."41 [38] When the RPD asked the Principal Appellant if there was anywhere in Nigeria that the Appellants could live and be safe, she said no because her husband's uncle has many high connections and is in the ruling party, so they would not be safe.42 When the RPD asked the Principal Appellant if they could live in any of the suggested IFAs, the Principal Appellant said no. When asked why not, the Principal Appellant said because of the influence of her husband's uncle. When asked if there was any other reason, the Principal Appellant said the uncle was powerful and would look for the Appellants anywhere in Nigeria.43 [39] The Principal Appellant testified earlier that her husband's parents are not alive and that he has uncles and brothers in Nigeria.44 The Principal Appellant first testified that members of her husband's family who want them circumcised live in Warri, but later she testified that they did not all live in Warri but that she did not know where they were living.45 The Principal Appellant testified that her husband's uncle is a big man, a politician, has lots of people working for him and is responsible for the demand for circumcision. His name is XXXX and lives in Warri. The Principal Appellant said that he does not have an official position in the government but he is like someone who does. When asked by the RPD if she had any documentation about this uncle, the Principal Appellant said no.46 [40] I have reviewed the evidence presented by the Appellants, including the affidavit from the Principal Appellant?s mother, and none of the evidence presented by the Appellants addresses the motivation and ability of the husband?father's family generally, and his uncle XXXX specifically, to find the Appellants in the proposed IFAs. [41] I do not find that the RPD erred in referencing the size of Benin City as a reason why it would be difficult for the Principal Appellant's husband's family to find the Appellants, especially when it did so in the context of objective evidence about the region's poor communications infrastructure47 and problems with the national police database.48 [42] I do not find that the Appellants established, by presenting any evidence or referencing objective evidence, that the Principal Appellant's husband's family would find them in Benin City through social media. [43] Following my own review, I note that the objective evidence reports the following information about FGM in Nigeria: * The prevalence of FGM may depend on one's ethnic background, prevalence of FGM in the extended family and the parents' education;49 * In Nigeria, parents appear to have the ability to refuse FGM;50 * The sources give no indication of risk of kidnapping and forced FGM, where the parents are not consensual;51 * The performing of FGM depends on the educational level and economic status of the family, with better education and more affluent families more resistant to the practice;52 * A person who is the parent of a minor child who is opposed to them undergoing FGM within communities that practise it may face discrimination and ostracism for going against cultural or family traditions.53 [44] The documentary evidence does not indicate a practice of taking children by force to perform FGM in Nigeria over the objections of their parents. The Principal Appellant testified that her husband supports her and does not want his daughters circumcised and that they reported the conflict with his family to the police.54 Following my own review of the objective evidence, I found a single unsubstantiated reference in a study conducted in four Nigerian states, Delta, Ekiti, Imo and Kaduma, which reported a case in which a maternal grandmother allegedly took her granddaughter to be cut against the mother's wishes.55 Nor are there any reports of parents who refuse FGM being at risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger. I find that the objective evidence does not support the Principal Appellant's claims that the in-laws will harm them because they have refused to have their daughters circumcised or that they would kidnap the female Appellants to have them forcefully circumcised if they were to return to Nigeria. [45] Following my review of the Principal Appellant's testimony, the Appellants' evidence and the objective evidence, as detailed above, I find that the Appellants have not established, on a balance of probabilities, that their husband?father's family have the motivation, reach or influence to continue looking for them or find them in Benin City. I find that the Appellants did not establish that they would be persecuted by their in-laws if they relocated to Benin City. Second prong of the IFA test: it is not objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh for the Appellants to relocate to the proposed IFA [46] The issue is whether it would be reasonable, in all the Appellants' circumstances, for them to relocate to Benin City. The RPD considered characteristics of Benin City as a very large, multiethnic and multilingual city as well as the personal circumstances of the Principal Appellant. The RPD addressed the Principal Appellant's: numerous visits to the United States and Canada; relocation to Canada; education and work experience and employment prospects; ability to speak English; marital status; husband continuing to support the family; and mental health and availability of treatment. The RPD concluded Benin City to be both safe and reasonable, in terms of relocation for the Appellants. [47] The Appellants argue that in determining the reasonableness of an IFA, the RPD is expected to take into account factors including religious, economic and cultural factors and consider how these factors would affect the Appellants in the IFA location.56 [48] I note that the burden of proof rests with the Appellants to establish that the IFA is not reasonable and also note that the Appellants did not present any arguments about religious, economic and cultural factors in Benin City that would impact the Appellants to the extent that relocating to the proposed IFA would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh. [49] As detailed below, I have considered the record, the RPD findings, the submissions of the Appellants and undertaken an assessment consistent with the framework set out in the IFA Jurisprudential Guide to conclude that the Appellants did not meet their high onus to demonstrate that relocating to Benin City would be unduly harsh or objectively unreasonable in their particular circumstances. While I recognize that the Appellants could face some hardship relocating to the proposed IFAs, "the hardship associated with relocation is not the kind that renders an IFA unreasonable."57 [50] Transportation and Travel: I find that the Appellants would be able to travel safely to Benin City and stay there without facing undue hardship. Benin City is serviced by an airport which would allow the Appellants to return directly.58 [51] Language: Although the Principal Appellant used the services of a Pidgin English interpreter, she responded to many of the RPD's questions in English and put the interpreter on standby for the second half of the hearing.59 The Principal Appellant and the two youngest minor Appellants all list their languages as English and Pidgin English in their BOCs,60 and the two oldest female Appellants list their languages as Itsekiri and English.61 Since English is the official language of Nigeria and Pidgin English is the lingua franca of the south of Nigeria, and specifically Edo State whose capital is Benin City,62 I find that the Appellants will not face any language barriers. [52] Education and Employment: The Principal Appellant reports 19 years of education including 7 years of university and a XXXX in XXXX XXXX.63 The Principal Appellant lists nearly 17 years of work experience as an XXXX XXXX with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.64 Since coming to Canada the Principal Appellant has completed a number of programs and courses: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,65 XXXX XXXX XXXX,66 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX67 and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX program.68 The Principal Appellant testified that she is currently working in Canada as a XXXX.69 [53] As referenced above, the average total years of education completed for Nigerian women is eight years. Recognizing that it may be difficult for the average Nigerian to find a job due to economic conditions in Nigeria,70 I agree with the RPD that the Principal Appellant's travel experience, ability to relocate, education, work experience and English language skills puts her in a better position than the average Nigerian and weigh in her favour to find employment in Benin City. [54] Accommodation?Household: Initially, the Principal Appellant testified that her husband lives in Warri and works for XXXX, an XXXX XXXX, as an XXXX XXXX, and has been working for XXXX for ten years.71 The Principal Appellant testified that her husband is the breadwinner of the family. She also testified that he is working offshore, doesn't come to land anymore and comes to meet his family in Canada when he is not working offshore.72 He works offshore for one month and then comes to Canada for three weeks.73 [55] I agree with the RPD that the Appellant would not be travelling and living in Benin City as a single female head of house as she is married and has testified that her husband is the breadwinner of the family. [56] Religion: The Appellants are Christian. The objective evidence also says, as detailed above, that the Appellants will have access to places of worship and other people who share their religious values in Benin City where the Christian religion is widely practised.74 This could help facilitate their integration in the IFA. [57] Availability of Medical and Mental Health Care: The Appellants argue that the RPD "did not take into consideration the mental state of mind of the applicant."75 I do not agree. The RPD noted that the Principal Appellant submitted a psychological assessment report from Dr. XXXX76 with a diagnosis of XXXX and XXXX indicating that she requires mental health treatment. The RPD found that the Appellant did not present any evidence that treatment would not be available in Benin City. I agree with the RPD and find that the Appellants presented evidence that the Principal Appellant received medical treatment for a depressive disorder while living in Warri.77 CONCLUSION [58] I find that the Appellants have a viable IFA in Benin City. I am satisfied that there is no serious possibility of the Appellants being persecuted or that they risk harm, on a balance of probabilities, in Benin City and that it would not be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in all the circumstances for them to live in Benin City. [59] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) "Susan Brown" Susan Brown February 18, 2020 Date 1 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibits 2-6, pages 13-68, as amended by Exhibit 9, page 506. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII). 3 X (Re), 2018 CanLII 52123 (IFA Jurisprudential Guide). 4 Ibid. 5 Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1126 (CanLII), para. 7. 6 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 1 FC 706. 7 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1994 1 FC 589. 8 Doherty v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 661. 9 Dakpokpo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 580; Egbesola v. M.C.I., 2016 FC 204. See RAD decisions: X (Re), 2016 CanLII 105374 (CA IRB) and X (Re), 2015 CanLII 111326 (CA IRB). 10 Melford-Jowoh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 455. See RAD decision X (Re), 2016 CanLII 106181 (CA IRB). 11 Dibia v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2017 FC 1076. 12 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tab 16.2: United Kingdom. Home Office, Country Information and Guidance. Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0 (August 2016), page 5, section 2.2.2. 13 Ibid., tab 16.2, page 7, section 2.4.8. 14 Ibid., tab 16.2, page 5, section 2.2.2. 15 Reynoso, Edith Isabel Guardian v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2110-94), Muldoon, January 29, 1996. 16 Cadena Ramirez, Francisco Jose v. M.C.I., 2010 FC 1276. 17 Jilani, Zia Uddin Ahmed v. M.C.I., 2007 FC 1354, para. 13. 18 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164, paras. 15-16, citing Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589. 19 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Chairperson Guideline 4:Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Gender Guideline). 20 Ibid. 21 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tab 16.2, United Kingdom. Home Office, Country Information and Guidance. Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0 (August 2016). 22 Ibid., tab 16.2, page 9, section 6.3.1. 23 Ibid., tab 16.1, United States, Central Intelligence Agency, Nigeria. The World Factbook. (November 10, 2016); tab 16.5, L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde (July 4, 2017). 24 Ibid., tabs 16.1 and 16.5, Nigeria. L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde. Jacques Leclerc. 4 July 2017. 25 Ibid., tab 16.9, Whether women who head their own households, without male or family support, can obtain housing and employment in large northern cities, such as Kano, Maiduguri, and Kaduna, and southern cities, such as Lagos, Ibadan, Port Harcourt; government.... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 19 November 2012. NGA103907.E. 26 Ibid., tab 16.9. 27 Ibid., tab 16.9. 28 Ibid., tab 16.12, United States. Department of State, Nigeria. International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 (August 15, 2017), page 2. 29 Ibid., tab 16.13, Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA104679.E, Treatment of Christians who relocate from northern parts of Nigeria by people in Port Harcourt... (6 December 2013). 30 Ibid., tab 16.14, Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA104216.E, Whether a member of an ethnic group can be identified by physical characteristics, manner of dress, or by any other means... (20 November 2012), page 9, section 3.2. 31 Ibid., tab 16.13, Treatment of Christians who relocate from northern parts of Nigeria by people in Port Harcourt [Rivers State]; whether they face linguistic, economic and social difficulties (2012-November 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 6 December 2013. NGA104679.E. 32 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706. 33 Ousmer, Fazia Touileb v. M.C.I., 2012 FC 222, para. 24 citing Pena, Luis Arturo Rocha v. M.C.I., 2009 FC 616 and Lopez, Highlander Guzman v. M.C.I., 2010 FC 990. 34 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 8, RPD Reasons, para. 23. 35 Ibid., para. 26. 36 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of February 27, 2019, Audio Recording 0:9:30-0:9:40. 37 Ibid., Audio Recording 1:54:38-1:54:48. 38 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 10, RPD Reasons, para. 33. 39 P-2, Appellants' Record, pages 95 and 96, Appellants' Memorandum, para. 22. 40 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 361 and 362, Exhibit 8. 41 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 96, Appellants' Memorandum, para. 24. 42 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of February 27, 2019, Audio Recording 1:53:40-0:39:05. 43 Ibid., Audio Recording 1:54:32-1:55:12. 44 Ibid., Audio Recording 0:38:35-0:39:05. 45 Ibid., Audio Recording 1:11:30-1:12:30 and 1:15:55-1:16:50. 46 Ibid., Audio Recording 1:14:10-1:15:50. 47 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tab 1.23: EASO Country of Origin Information Report. Nigeria: Key socio-economic indicators. European Union. European Asylum Support Office. November 2018. 48 Ibid., tab 10.4: Information on a national police computer network for information sharing; nature and extent of communication between police offices across the country; whether police offices in different states are obligated to report to each other regarding ... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 21 November 2017. NGA106000.E. 49 Ibid., tab 5.28: Prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM), including ethnic groups in which FGM is prevalent, particularly in Lagos State and within the Edo ethnic group; consequences for refusal; availability of state protection; the ability of a family... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 13 September 2016. NGA105628.E and tab 1.22: Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Version 1.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. February 2017. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid., tab 5.12: Whether parents can refuse female genital mutilation (FGM) of their daughter; state protection available (2016-October 2018). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 29 October 2018. NGA106183.FE. 53 Ibid., tab 1.22, para. 2.3.8. 54 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 369, Exhibit 8. 55 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tab 5.12, page 2. 56 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 96, Appellants' Memorandum, para. 23. 57 Okechukwu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1142 (CanLII). 58 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tab 1.1: Nigéria. L'Encyclopédie en ligne. Larousse. 59 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of February 27, 2019, Audio Recording 1:26:00-1:26:15. 60 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibits 2 and 4, pages 14, 36. 61 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibits 5 and 6, pages 46 and 60. 62 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tab 1.15: Nigeria. L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde. L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde. Jacques Leclerc. 4 July 2017, page 4. 63 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, Schedule A, page 86. 64 Ibid. 65 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 9, page 514. 66 Ibid., page 515. 67 Ibid., page 516. 68 Ibid., page 525-531. 69 RPD-1. RPD Record, Hearing of February 27, 2019, Audio Recording 1:42:30-1:43:05. 70 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tab 1.6: Nigeria. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 27 November 2018, pages 9-13. 71 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of February 27, 2019, Audio Recording 0:32:10-0:35:14. 72 Ibid., Audio Recording 1:40:20-1:41:00. 73 Ibid., Audio Recording 1:59:00-2:00:40. 74 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tab 16.12, United States. Department of State, Nigeria. International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 (August 15, 2017), page 2. 75 P2, Appellants' Record, page 96, Appellants' Memorandum, para. 23. 76 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 9, pages 500-504. 77 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 368, Exhibit 8, page 501, Exhibit 9. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-13145 TB9-13146 / TB9-13147 / TB9-13148 TB9-13149 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