MB8-20045

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB8-20045/ MB8-20046/MB8-20047/MB8-20048/MB8-20049 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et Décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 17, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Robert Cox Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Patrizia Ruscio 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] This is an appeal of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) of Canada rejecting the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant or XXXX), her three minor daughters, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX) and her sonXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX) [collectively as a family, the Appellants], for the existence of viable internal flight alternatives (IFAs) within Nigeria. [2] The RPD considered the Nigerian Jurisprudential Guide (the Nigerian JG) and applied it to the Appellant's claim given the latter's similarity in facts, determined that the Appellants presented insufficient evidence to demonstrate how the alleged agents of harm (i.e. her in-laws) could or would locate them in the proposed IFAs of Abuja, Port Harcourt or XXXX (where XXXX husband, a XXXX XXXX, still lives and works) and found that the proposed IFAs would not be unreasonable for the Appellants given XXXX university education and 13 years of work experience as a XXXX. The RPD also noted that XXXX husband has not experienced any incidents, threats or harassment from his family while in XXXX. [3] For reasons that the RAD will examine, if necessary, in its Analysis section below, the Appellants argue that the RPD erred in its assessment of a viable IFA having based its decision on irrelevant and non-determinative elements, accepted XXXX general credibility and her fears of rituals (e.g. female circumcision or female genital mutilation-FGM and tribal facial markings) and proposed unrealistic IFAs. The Appellants submitted new evidence before the RAD which they contend demonstrates recent examples of women dying from complications related to FGM. [4] Like the RPD, the RAD finds that the determinative issue is an IFA for the Appellants, that the Appellants have a viable IFA and that, for the reasons outlined below, the Appeal is dismissed. CONTEXT [5] XXXX, the designated representative of the four minor claimants, claims fear of persecution and risks of danger to her personal safety and for that of her children from her husband's family. She asserts that her husband, and the father of the minor appellants, XXXX XXXX XXXX (hereinafter XXXX), is the "heir apparent" within his family because he was the first-born male to his late father who was the XXXX XXXX XXXX for the XXXX in the community of XXXX in Edo State. Following the death of XXXX father in XXXX 2017, XXXX contends that XXXX eldest sister, his younger brother and two of his younger cousins (i.e. the alleged agents of harm and hereafter the "In-Laws") approached her in a similar manner as XXXX immediate family had when XXXX and XXXX were first married. The Appellants were married under their Christian faith in 2001 (although Appellants' Exhibit P-7 stipulates that the marriage took place in 2002) and upon the birth of each of their four children, XXXX family wanted her and the children to undergo and complete the traditional family rituals of FGM and tribal facial markings. XXXX alleges that the In-Laws insisted and threatened XXXX in XXXX 2017 and that they wanted "their children" (i.e. the In-Laws consider the minor appellants as being children of the tribe/clan) to be presented and to undergo the traditional procedures. XXXX reports that, based on their Christian faith, she and XXXX refused to give in to the In-Laws' demands. Based on this refusal, she contends that arguments and physical altercations arose and that the In-Laws view her as an obstacle and the reason why XXXX has refused to take his rightful place as the "heir apparent" and to present his children for the traditional rituals. [6] The Appellant alleges fears that she may be killed and that her children will be kidnapped and forced by the In-Laws to undergo the traditional rituals should she and the children return to Nigeria. She reports that the In-Laws represent XXXX family and the traditional beliefs of the family that is responsible for and in charge of the community shrine. XXXX also reports that it is XXXX intention to leave Nigeria again and to come to Canada once he pays off debts back in Nigeria. Based on these fears, XXXX and XXXX fled Nigeria with their children for the United States of America (U.S.A.) in XXXX 2017 where they remained as a family for four days. Following their brief hiatus in the U.S.A., XXXX returned to Nigeria and XXXX and the four children entered Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017, to seek refuge. ROLE OF THE RAD [8] Unless otherwise specifically stated below, the RAD has applied a correctness standard in its review of the RPD decision. For this matter, the RAD has taken under consideration the IRB Chairman's Guideline #4 on gender related persecution (hereinafter Guideline #4) and the IRB RAD decision numbered TB7-19851,1 the latter of which has been, and continues to be, identified by the IRB as a Jurisprudential Guide for Nigerian cases (hereinafter referred to as the Nigerian JG). PROPOSED NEW EVIDENCE [9] Evidence from the person who is the subject of the appeal is only admissible if it meets the conditions set forth in subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). That is, proposed new evidence is only admissible if it arose after the claim was rejected, or it was not reasonably available, or the person could not reasonably have been expected to present it at the time the claim was rejected.2 If one of these conditions is met, the RAD will also consider if the evidence is credible, relevant and new.3 [10] The Appellants tendered four sets of new documents: (i) a set of two pages (hereafter "Set 1") consisting of a Certificate of Death and an Affidavit of Death allegedly relating to the death of a 13-year-old girl named XXXX XXXX XXXX; (ii) a set consisting of a one page (hereafter "Set 2") Medical Certificate of Cause of Death allegedly related to the death of a 52-year-old female named, Mrs. XXXX XXXX; (iii) a set of two pages (hereafter "Set 3") consisting of a Certificate of Death and an Affidavit of Death allegedly relating to the death of a 7-year-old female named XXXX XXXX XXXX; and (iv) a set of two pages (hereafter "Set 4") consisting of a Certificate of Death and an Affidavit of Death allegedly relating to the death of a 14-year-old female named XXXX XXXX XXXX. The RAD notes that the Appellants submitted these documents in their attempt to demonstrate recent deaths of females arising from FGM and to attempt to substantiate XXXX allegations of her fear of FGM for her minor daughters. [11] Appellants' Counsel submitted all four sets en liasse with the Appellants' Memorandum of Appeal (MOA). Appellants' Counsel did not conform to the procedures outlined in RAD Rule 37 or provide any arguments in accordance with RAD Rule 3(3)(g)(iii) as to how these sets of documents meet the conditions for their required examination and consideration by the RAD. [12] Notwithstanding that it falls within the RAD's authority to reject the admission of the new evidence based on the Appellants' failure, or neglect, to apply for the admission of such new evidence in accordance with RAD Rules 3(3)(g)(iii) and 37,4 the RAD, nonetheless, examined all four sets of documents and, for the reasons provided below, finds that all four sets are not admissible as new evidence before the RAD. [13] Set 1 purports to demonstrate the death of a 13-year-old girl named, XXXX, on XXXX XXXX, 2018 (i.e. three days following the date of the RPD decision on August 15, 2018). The death occurred after the RPD decision, and the documentary information relating to the event was not reasonably available to the Appellants at the time of the RPD decision. Having satisfied the test associated with RAD Rule 110(4), Set 1 can be examined by the RAD, in accordance with the Singh Raza Test5 to determine its credibility, relevance or newness. There is no evidence before the RAD to question the authenticity of the Certificate of Death for XXXX; however, the said Certificate of Death does not indicate XXXX cause of death. The RAD does note that the Affidavit of Death which accompanied the Certificate of Death attests that the XXXX died "as a result of circumcision infection"; however, the RAD also notes that the affidavit, allegedly sworn to and signed by her Uncle, Mr. XXXX XXXX, provides no evidence that Mr. XXXX is a XXXX, that he is in any way related to or has any relationship with the Appellants or, for that matter, the In-Laws. Nor, as the RAD further notes, is there is any evidence before the RAD which demonstrates that XXXX is, in any way, related to the Appellants or the In-Laws. Finally, Set 1 provides no evidence which demonstrates that the In-Laws or that XXXX family was in any way connected to the purported circumcision that allegedly led to the infection that "resulted in the death of XXXX"; nor is there any evidence from Set 1 which demonstrates when and where the alleged "circumcision" took place, be it in a shrine or in a hospital. For all these reasons the RAD rejects the admissibility of Set 1 as it finds that Set 1 is not relevant to the Appellants' claim. [14] The RAD rejects Sets 2, 3 and 4 not only because they fail to meet the requirements of RAD Rule 110(4) but because the incidents arose before the RPD's decision and there is no evidence before the RAD that this information was not available or that XXXX could not reasonably have been expected to present this evidence before the RPD. Moreover, the RAD finds that Sets 2, 3 and 4 lack credibility and are irrelevant in relation to the Appellants' FGM allegations. Set 2 provides evidence of the alleged death of a 52-year-old female named XXXX XXXX, who, according to the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death, died (i.e. at age 52) on XXXX XXXX, 2018 (i.e. before the RPD hearing and decision) not from any issue relating to FGM but, rather, from "Cardio-Pulmonary failure". Set 3 provides inconsistent evidence relating to the death of a 7-year girl, or boy, named XXXX XXXX XXXX, who was "shot dead by unknown men" on XXXX XXXX, 2017 (i.e. before the Appellants' departure from Nigeria). Set 3 provides no evidence relating to the death of XXXX to FGM or to circumcision. Set 4 relates the same reasons for the death of a 14-year-old girl named, XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2016 (i.e. before the Appellants departure from Nigeria). That is, Set 4 provides that XXXX was "shot by unknown gun men on her way home from school". [15] For all the aforementioned reasons, the RAD finds Sets 1, 2, 3 and 4 inadmissible and does not give any of the Sets any probative value or take them into account for the decision rendered below. ANALYSIS [16] After considering the Appellant's arguments and having conducted an independent review and assessment of their RPD record, listening to the recording of the RPD hearing and examining all of the evidence placed before it, the RAD agrees with the RPD's decision that the Appellants did not establish that they are at serious risk of persecution or that there exists, on balance of probabilities, a danger to their personal security or their life. The RAD finds that the Appellants do have a viable IFA(s) within Nigeria. NIGERIAN JG AND IRB GUIDELINE #4 [17] The Appellants did not contest the RPD's correct use of the Nigerian JG which, as the RAD agrees, is a useful guide in the present file, given its sufficient similarity with the facts presented by the Appellants and its general applicability to Nigerians seeking refuge based on alleged fears involving non-State Actors. Although the facts in the present case do not simply involve a single woman but, rather, an entire family, the RAD finds that the RPD correctly considered the Nigerian JG and did not strictly rely on it in any manner that would analogously amount to a stare decisis or obligatory application. The RAD also notes that the RPD decision correctly considered IRB Guideline #4-IRB Chairperson's Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (Guideline #4). IFA [18] The Appellants, at paragraphs 11 through 16 of their MOA, argue that the RPD's decision was, inconsistent, unintelligible, unreasonable, unfounded and that it erred in its assessment of a viable IFA: (i) by having based its decision on irrelevant and non-determinative elements; (ii) by proposing an "unrealistic" IFA without considering the Appellants' "royal" profile; and (iii) by accepting XXXX general credibility and her fears of traditional rituals (e.g. female circumcision or female genital mutilation-FGM and tribal facial markings) but stating that the determinative issue was an IFA. The Appellants, through their experienced legal counsel, questioned whether the RPD appropriately applied the correct first prong analysis of the Rasaratnam Test without clearly establishing how it concluded that there was no serious prejudice to them once they return to Nigeria. [19] At paragraphs 17 through 23 of the MOA, the Appellants' reiterate XXXX arguments that relate to the second prong analysis under the Rasaratnam Test; arguments which the RAD will address and analyze in its Second Prong analysis below. [20] The Appellants' only arguments that can be related to the RPD's first prong analysis is found at paragraph 24 of the Appellants' MOA and the remaining paragraphs 25 through 35 of the MOA deal with the Appellants' reiteration of the RPD's misunderstanding of the Rasaratnam Test and the new evidence (i.e. already examined and ruled inadmissible by the RAD). [21] The RAD finds the RPD correctly conducted the two prong Rasaratnam Test before determining the existence of viable IFA(s) for the Appellants. However, as is well-founded by the Federal Court Jurisprudence, the RAD must now conduct its own independent two prong analysis to determine if the RPD's proposed IFAs are viable options for the Appellants. First Prong Analysis Irrelevant and non-determinative elements & XXXX Royal Profile [22] Throughout the hearing, the RPD Member correctly advised the Appellants about the determinative issue being an IFA and conducted her examination of possible IFAs in the cities/regions of Abuja, Port Harcourt and the city of XXXX in Ogun State where XXXX, at the time of the RPD hearing, was reported to be living and working as a Nigerian XXXX XXXX. The RPD correctly considered the Nigerian JG, examined the similarities and distinguished the differences between the facts laid out in the Nigerian JG with the facts of the present matter. The RPD asked XXXX how and why she believed the In-Laws could find her and her children anywhere in Nigeria to which XXXX replied that XXXX family is connected to politicians and that their surname is like royalty (i.e. well-known in XXXX). Asked by the RPD how XXXX family is connected to politicians, XXXX was unable to answer; instead, she replied that she does not know of any particular person.6 The RPD also asked about an alleged newspaper article that was allegedly published on XXXX XXXX, 2017 (shortly before the Appellants departure from Nigeria) and which reported the plight of the Appellants (i.e. Appellant's Exhibit P-12). XXXX responded to the RPD's questions about Exhibit P-12, by testifying that she and XXXX had approached a Non-Government Organization (NGO) which she could not name and that they met with the reporter that wrote the article on a couple of occasions. Asked by the RPD about when she met with the NGO and the reporter, XXXX responded that she "could not remember the year".7 Asked about the reaction that Exhibit P-12 caused within XXXX, if any, XXXX immediately responded that the XXXX of the XXXX community XXXX group called XXXX to inform him that he saw it as an embarrassment on the community and then menacingly stated, "do you think you can do anything with that?"8 [23] The RPD did not accept XXXX explanations about XXXX family name being recognizable throughout Nigeria and found that there was insufficient evidence that XXXX surname would be recognizable in such large cities as Abuja and Port Harcourt. Moreover, the RPD found that, because XXXX is a XXXX XXXX, he would have access to the use of resources to support the Appellants anywhere he may be transferred in Nigeria. The RPD also noted that XXXX had lived in XXXX without incident from the In-Laws since at least 2017. For these reasons, the RPD determined that XXXX had presented insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the In-Laws would be able to find the Appellants anywhere in Nigeria. [24] The RAD notes the following issues as a demonstration of its own finding, and its agreement with the RPD, that there is insufficient evidence that there is any motivation or continued interest from the In-Laws to seek out the Appellants throughout Nigeria. [25] There is insufficient evidence, if any, before the RAD that the In-Laws have any continued interest, motivation or the capacity to search for the Appellants' whereabouts throughout Nigeria. The evidence that is before the RAD, which was also presented before the RPD, indicates that any of the alleged incidents and requests or threats for the completion or performance of the traditional rituals occurred either in the city/region of XXXX between 2001 and 2005 or when the Appellants, themselves, invited the In-Laws to Lagos for the naming ceremony of their last-born daughter, XXXX, in 2012. The final incidents, in 2017, occurred, once again, in XXXX when the Appellants visited XXXX for the funeral of XXXX late father. There is no evidence before the RAD which demonstrates that the In-Laws ever actively sought out the Appellants on their own initiative while the Appellants were living beyond the borders of the city/region of XXXX. Indeed, XXXX testified that Lagos was "more secure and more modern". When asked by the RPD if the In-Laws ever sought out the Appellants in Lagos once the Appellants had moved there from XXXX in 2005, XXXX answered: "Not at all. Not until we invited them for the naming ceremony of XXXX"9 (i.e. in 2012). XXXX further testified that XXXX voiced his regret at having invited them to Lagos and that "welcoming them to Lagos was a mistake".10 Moreover, XXXX testified that XXXX has experienced no incidents with the In-Laws since living in XXXX since 2017. [26] The RAD also noted that XXXX was unable to provide the simplest of answers relating to Exhibit P-12 (i.e. the newspaper article about XXXX family). XXXX could not recall when she had met with the NGO or when she and XXXX had met with the reporter. The RAD read Exhibit P-12 and noted that it reported on alleged incidents that occurred following the death of XXXX father (i.e. XXXX XXXX, 2017), was allegedly published on XXXX XXXX, 2017, and that the Appellants departed Nigeria as a family on or about XXXX XXXX, 2017. The RAD is not satisfied with XXXX answer that she could not remember the year that she and XXXX met with the NGO or the reporter (i.e. the author of the newspaper article). The story published in Exhibit P-12 is alleged to describe the incidents that are alleged to be the precipice that forced the Appellants to flee Nigeria for fear of their safety and, even, their lives; yet, XXXX was unable to recall the "year that she met with the NGO or the reporter". The RAD finds this answer unsatisfactory and one which lacks logic. Further yet, the RAD finds that Exhibit P-12 does not support XXXX allegations that XXXX surname is known throughout Nigeria nor is there any other evidence which supports this allegation. Indeed, XXXX did testify that the minor appellants were recognized at a XXXX school when the Appellants moved within XXXX and that the community within XXXX is large (i.e. number approximately 5000 people), however, there is no evidence before the RAD which demonstrates that XXXX surname is recognizable or known throughout Nigeria. [27] For these reasons, and contrary to the Appellants' arguments, the RAD finds that none of the aforementioned elements, as correctly analyzed by the RPD are "irrelevant and non-determinative" to either of the RPD's or RAD's first prong Rasaratnam analysis and that "XXXX XXXX XXXX" within the XXXX community of XXXX does not extend beyond the borders of the community of XXXX and into the whole of Nigeria. XXXX General Credibility [28] The Appellants argue that the RPD accepted XXXX general credibility and her fear of the In-Laws, yet, nonetheless, the RPD determined the existence of an IFA. The RPD, for its part, found that XXXX testimony was credible "although there are some concerns with the claimant's credibility".11 The RPD then, correctly, went on to complete the necessary Rasaratnam Test. [29] Once again, and with respect, the RAD disagrees with the Appellants' assertions and interpretation. One can be found to have testified credibly or to have submitted a credible story yet still not be defined as, or fall under, the Convention definition of "a refugee". The jurisprudence provides that once an IFA is announced as the determinative issue, the burden falls upon the claimant to demonstrate that a viable IFA is not possible. In this case, XXXX may have been credible on certain aspects of her claim, but the RPD correctly determined that she did not sufficiently demonstrate that her life or the lives of her family would encounter great physical danger to their person or life or undergo undue hardship such that it would be unreasonable for them to relocate anywhere throughout Nigeria. Indeed, the evidence demonstrates just the opposite. XXXX and her family lived in Lagos without incident from 2005 through 2012, a period of 7 years. The incident in Lagos occurred after the Appellants extended an invitation to XXXX family for the naming ceremony of XXXX and, hence, revealed the location where they had been living peacefully for 7 years. Further still, XXXX testified that XXXX has been living in XXXX since 2017 where he requested a transfer that was granted by the Nigerian police force (for whom XXXX has worked for over 20 years) and that there have been no incidents with the In-Laws during that time. [30] As such, the RAD finds that the RPD did not commit any error by stating that XXXX was generally credible or that she testified credibly and then found that there was no evidence that the agents of harm have the capacity or a continuing interest or motivation to search the whereabouts of the Appellants throughout Nigeria. [31] For all these reasons, the RAD disagrees with the Appellants arguments that the RPD erred in law or in fact, when having conducted and written its first prong analysis. The RAD finds, as the RPD correctly concluded, that the Appellants have failed to demonstrate with sufficient evidence that there is any serious possibility that they would be at risk of suffering from any forward-looking persecution or of any personal harm to their personal security or life from the In-Laws upon their return to the identified IFA(s). Second Prong Analysis [32] The Appellants argue that the cities/regions identified by the RPD, more specifically, Abuja, Port Harcourt and Abeokuta are non-viable IFAs because the In-Laws will find the Appellants anywhere they go, because Abuja is a tourist destination, because the In-Laws could where disguises and present themselves as Boko-Haram or as members of other violent community clans. The Appellants advance arguments that Abuja is in the North and that XXXX has never lived in the North but has visited the North. In response the RPD's questioning of the reasonability of Port Harcourt, the Appellants assert that it is expensive, there are many community clashes and that it is a Coastal city and XXXX does not know how to swim. For both Abuja and Port Harcourt the Appellants assert that it would be difficult to find jobs and in response to Abeokuta as an IFA choice, XXXX testified that it is only safe because the In-Laws believe XXXX lives in XXXX. [33] The RPD correctly applied the Nigerian JG to determine the reasonableness of Abuja and Port Harcourt. It evaluated and considered XXXX better than average university education and her 13 years of professional experience within the Nigerian XXXX field. The RPD considered XXXX 20-year career as a Nigerian XXXX XXXX as well his continued communication and ongoing support of the Appellants and his marital relationship with XXXX. The RPD also noted XXXX ability to transfer between different locations within Nigeria (transfers which he has done on at least two prior occasions). For these reasons, the RPD concluded that the proposed cities/regions of Abuja, Port Harcourt and Abeokuta are reasonable IFAs for the Appellants. [34] The RAD takes this opportunity to reiterate that an IFA must be realistic and attainable and that the Appellants cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or undergo hardship in travelling and staying there. The Federal Court has set a high threshold for the test of unreasonableness; for an IFA to be considered unreasonable it must be demonstrated, with concrete evidence, that the individual's security and life would be in danger within the proposed IFA. In this case, and for the reasons below, the RAD, after conducting an independent second prong analysis of the IFAs proposed by the RPD, finds that the RPD was correct and that the Appellants' relocation to Abuja, Port Harcourt or Abeokuta would not create any such undue hardship or place their personal security or lives in great danger. ABUJA [35] Document 1.4 of the Nigerian NDP provides that Abuja is the Capital of Nigeria situated in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) with an estimated population of approximately 2,919 million inhabitants and wherein English, the official language of Nigeria, is the common language. The documentation provides that there is a relatively equal religious mix between Nigerians of the Christian and Muslim faiths and there is access to education and healthcare (albeit expensive healthcare but such a situation would not be anymore different for the Appellants than for any other Nigerian living in Abuja). According to Document 1.23 of the NDP Abuja is the least difficult place to start a business ranking first out of Nigeria's 36 States and is the second-lowest region for unemployment, ranking slightly behind Lagos. Abuja is Nigeria's second fastest growing city behind Lagos yet the 600,000 deficits in houses does not propel the owners of houses to sell or to rent their properties at any price with the result being a vacancy in housing. According to 1.17 of the most recent Nigerian NDP, Abuja is one of two regions in Nigeria which does not establish or place non-indigene limitations or quotas on governing policies. With respect to FGM, Document 5.16 provides that Abuja, located in the FCT (which is in central Nigeria and not in the North) provides the most secure State Protection against FGM and is in a region in which the Violence Against Persons Prohibitions (VAPP) act is enforceable. [36] The evidence provided by XXXX, as also stated by the RPD, demonstrates that she has an education which higher than the average education level within Nigeria and that she has 13 years work experience. XXXX understands English and speaks and writes it fluently. XXXX is in her early 40s and there is no evidence which demonstrates that she suffers from any illness or is in poor health. As such, the evidence demonstrates that she is employable and can seek and acquire employment in Abuja. The evidence demonstrates that accommodations in Abuja are not scarce, that there is vacancy and, while the Appellants may experience a period of some readjustment, the Appellants can and would acquire housing. The Minor Appellants are all of primary school age and will have access to education and all of the Appellants will have access to proper healthcare (albeit expensive healthcare, but this is no different than any other Nigerian living in Abuja). The Appellants can freely and securely practice their Christian faith within Abuja and they can, if at all needed, seek appropriate protection from authorities against any perceived harm, notwithstanding XXXX obvious working relation with the Nigerian XXXX XXXX. The documentation demonstrates that Nigerians are free to move throughout Nigeria. Finally, the Appellants non-indigenous status to the region of Abuja is not a factor within Abuja and while the Appellants relocation to Abuja may, at first, be difficult, it would not be unreasonable. PORT HARCOURT [37] The objective documentary evidence demonstrates that Port Harcourt ranks amongst the largest cities in Nigeria and is similar in population to Abuja. Port Harcourt ranks amongst the highest cities within Nigeria for access to healthcare. Being a port city, Port Harcourt ranks high in the provision of security. The RAD notes that neither the most recent NDP nor the NDP referenced by the RPD contains any glaring negative reports or documentation which demonstrate that Port Harcourt does not rank much lower than Abuja in terms of employment, education or religious freedom. Nor were any such reports alleged by the Appellants in their MOA. The Appellants did assert that XXXX cannot swim, but, with respect, this factor does not rise to the threshold established by the Federal Court to render Port Harcourt unreasonable. Neither the RPD nor the RAD are suggesting that the Appellants must live on or near the water. [38] For both Abuja and Port Harcourt, the objective evidence references difficulties experienced by women who are at the head of their households (i.e. single, widowed, elderly or divorced women). In this matter, XXXX is married and supported by XXXX, a XXXX XXXX, and there is no evidence before the RAD that the marriage is in jeopardy. As such, there is no evidence before the RAD that XXXX falls within the situation asserted by the Appellants vis-à-vis relocation of women throughout Nigeria. ABEOKUTA [39] The RAD has not been presented with any evidence demonstrating the unreasonableness of Abeokuta as an IFA for the Appellants. Having considered the Nigerian JG and for the reasons examined above, but more specifically, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX without incident since 2017 and his greater than 20 years' employment within the Nigerian XXXX XXXX combined with XXXX higher than average education and her 13 years of work experience, the RAD has not been presented with any other factors that demonstrate that the proposed IFA of Abeokuta would rise to the threshold required to determine that Abeokuta is unreasonable for the Appellants. [40] For all these reasons, and given all the circumstances, including circumstances personal and particular to the Appellants, the RAD finds that it would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh for the Appellants to relocate to Abuja, Port Harcourt or Abeokuta and that, following an independent two prong examination, the Appellants do have viable IFAs in any of these three Nigerian cities/regions. CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE [41] In Part IV of their MOA, the Appellants assert that the RPD failed to consider all of the evidence and in so doing committed unreasonable errors. The Appellants did not provide any examples of the evidence not considered by the RPD, but, instead, simply cited jurisprudential decisions of the Federal Court. After having reviewed all of the evidence and having read and reread the RPD decision as well as having listened to the RPD hearing, the RAD respectfully refutes the Appellants assertion. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the RPD decision demonstrates that the RPD considered the entirety of the documentary evidence submitted before it. The duration of the RPD hearing was for one hour and forty minutes during which time the RPD Member conducted a thorough questioning of the Appellants in relation to their BoCs, their narrative and the submitted documentary evidence. The Appellants were provided with more than adequate time to respond to all of the questions posed by the RPD Member and they were able to expand upon said responses under cross-examination from their experienced Counsel. The Appellants' Counsel made representations for almost ten minutes and submitted arguments on NDP documents that were considered by the RPD. And finally, at the completion of Counsel's arguments, the RPD Member asked if there was anything further that the Appellants wished to add. The RPD considered the Nigerian JG, the Guideline #4 and cited from the Appellants' BoC and the other claim documentation. For all these reasons, the RAD finds that the RPD correctly completed a thorough review of all of the evidence that was both generally applicable and of specific relevance to the Appellants. As such, the RAD refutes the Appellants opposing assertions and finds that the RPD correctly examined all of the evidence. DETERMINATION [42] The RAD finds that the Appellants have not satisfied their requirements to establish that they face the serious possibility of any forward-looking persecution, or, on a balance of probabilities, a personal risk to their life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture and that they are not "Convention Refugees" pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA nor persons in need of protection pursuant to subsection 97 (1) of the IRPA because, as was correctly concluded by the RPD, there exists viable IFAs for the Appellants within Nigeria. [32] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD, the whole pursuant to paragraph 111 (1) (a) of the IRPA. (Signed) Robert Cox Me Robert Cox February 17, 2020 Date RC/tm 1 IRB RAD case identified as TB7-19851 (determined to be a Jurisprudential Guide by the Chairperson of the IRB of Canada). 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), s. 110(4). 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96 4 See Tiodunmo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1489 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96 ; Raza v. Canada (MCI) 2007 FCA 385 6 RPD Hearing Minutes: 01:10:00-01:12:00 7 Ibid Minutes 01:07:00-01:10:00 8 Ibid 9 Ibid Minute 00:32:09 to 38:23 10 Ibid 11 RPD decision, see paragraph 11 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB8-20045/ MB8-20046/MB8-20047/MB8-20048/MB8-20049 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