MB9-07757

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-07757 MB9-07758 / MB9-07759 / MB9-07760 MB9-07761 / MB9-07762 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision January 21, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Susan Brown Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Michael Dorey 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), his spouse XXXX XXXX XXXX and their children XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, citizens of Nigeria, appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated March 21, 2019, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. The Principal Appellant is the designated representative of his minor children. [2] The Appellants are seeking protection from members of the Principal Appellant's community because the adult Appellants refused to allow the minor female Appellants to be subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM) and the minor male Appellants to be initiated into the family/village deities and cults. [3] The RPD found that the Appellants have viable internal flight alternatives (IFAs) in Ibadan or Lagos. The Appellants argue that the RPD erred in its application of the IFA Jurisprudential Guide1 and the two-pronged test for assessing IFA prescribed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Rasaratnam2 and that it did not properly consider the Chairperson's Gender Guideline.3 [4] Following my independent review, I find that the RPD did not err. I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants have viable IFAs in Ibadan or Lagos. BACKGROUND [5] According to their Basis of Claim Forms (BOCs),4 the Appellants were born in 1972, 1982, 2007, 2008 and 2011. [6] The Appellants allege that they were mistreated between 2013 and 2017 by the people who oversee and keep the culture of the Principal Appellant's community, Umueze Amaimo Ikeduro, a village located in Imo State. The conflict between the Principal Appellant and his community started in March 2013 when he refused the demands of the head of his family to submit the minor female Appellants to FGM and the minor male Appellant to an initiation in 2015. The family head was furious and pressured the Principal Appellant's father to get the Principal Appellant to change his mind. [7] When the family head died in 2015, he was replaced by the Principal Appellant's father's elder brother, a traditionalist and native doctor, who was ruthless and unapproachable. The new family head continued to apply pressure and threatened the Principal Appellant and his father. [8] At the beginning of 2016, emboldened by the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act and actions by UNICEF and the National Orientation Agency, the adult Appellants decided to wage an open campaign against FGM. In the second half of 2016 the adult Appellants realized that they were in danger and stopped their campaign. They got a family visa to the United States in March 2017. The female adult Appellant and three of the minor Appellants left for the United States on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 where the Principal Appellant and the other minor Appellant joined them three weeks later. [9] The Principal Appellant returned to Nigeria on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 to his job at the XXXX and to deal with the female adult Appellant's XXXX XXXX. Fearful for his safety, he returned to the United States in the second week of XXXX 2018. [10] The Appellants arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. Their claims for protection were received on January 26, 2018 and amended on February 7, 2018 and on January 31, 2019. The Appellants' claims were heard on February 18, 2019 and the RPD gave its decision on March 21, 2019. SCOPE OF THE RAD REVIEW [11] 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.5 Unless specifically stated below, I have applied the correctness standard. ANALYSIS [12] The RPD identified IFA as the determinative issue and found that the Appellants have viable IFAs in Ibadan or Lagos. [13] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred in its application of the IFA Jurisprudential Guide6 and the test for assessing IFA7 and did not properly consider the Chairperson's Gender Guideline.8 [14] Following my own review of the record, the testimony of the Principal Appellant, the arguments of the Appellants, and applying the framework of assessment outlined in the IFA Jurisprudential Guide,9 I find, for the reasons outlined below, that the RPD did not err in its finding that the Appellants have viable IFAs in Ibadan or Lagos. Preamble: IFA in Nigeria [15] Pursuant to section 159(1) (h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board has identified a RAD decision10 (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 assessment of IFA in Nigeria, generally, and specifically in south and central Nigeria where the proposed IFAs, Ibadan and Lagos, are located. 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.11 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:12 (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.13 [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 upheld determinative findings of viable IFAs in Nigeria in cases where the alleged fear is related to allegations of, for example, witchcraft,14 female genital mutilation (or the refusal to submit one's child to such mutilation),15 forced participation in rituals,16 Boko Haram, threats of domestic violence at the hands of a former partner, Fulani herdsmen, and kidnappers.17 [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."18 [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."19 [21] The documentation indicates that there are several very large, multilingual, multiethnic cities in south and central Nigeria, such as Lagos (population 13.463 million), Kano (3.383 million), Ibadan (2.919 million), the capital of Abuja (2.343 million), Port Harcourt (1.628 million), and Benin City,20 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,21 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.22 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.23 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.24 [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 Guideline25 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,26 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 186 million. Nigerians have the right to reside in any part of the country.27 The documentary evidence shows that all main centres are linked by road; in addition, many of the large urban centres boast international airports,28 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.29 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.30 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.31 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.32 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.33 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.34 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."35 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 this 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.36 [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 to be 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.37 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.38 Thus, the existence of an IFA is fatal to any refugee claim.39 [34] The RPD complied with the procedural requirements to raise an IFA before or during the hearing. IFA was identified as an issue at the outset of the RPD hearing on February 18, 201940 and Lagos, Ibadan and Abuja were canvassed as potential IFAs during the hearing. [35] The RPD correctly identified the two-prong IFA test.41 The RPD stated that in its analysis of the IFA it took into account the IFA Jurisprudential Guide because it involved "an IFA in Nigeria for claimants who allegedly feared non-state actors."42 First prong of the IFA test: no serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFAs [36] The RPD found that the Appellants did not meet their onus to demonstrate that the Principal Appellant's community would have the means and ability to reach them in the proposed IFAs and did not satisfy the first prong of the IFA test. [37] The Principal Appellant testified that the elders of his community have the capacity to find him in Lagos because people will see him, they have many people living there and they will find out that they are in that city. There are many people from his community who live in Lagos and everybody knows everybody else.43 The community has kidnappers and killers working for them.44 When asked by the RPD if he had any evidence to support these allegations of kidnappers and killers, the Principal Appellant said that he had no such evidence.45 The RPD said it would have reasonably expected the Principal Appellant to at least testify that members of his community, in past similar situations, were killed or kidnapped for refusing to bring their children to FGM or initiation rituals. The RPD found that the Principal Appellant did not establish that his community has sufficient power, wealth or influence to mount a nation-wide search for him and his family. [38] The Principal Appellant also testified that his sister lived in Lagos with her daughters hidden and she did not let anyone in their community know she had children. She was not bothered for years until someone told the community, and then she was asked to bring her daughters for FGM but, as of the date of the hearing, her daughters (aged eight and ten) had not gone through the FGM procedure.46 The RPD found that it was not provided with a reasonable explanation of why the community members were unable to track down the Principal Appellant's sister in Lagos or why, three years after they found his sister, her daughters had not been subjected to FGM. [39] The Appellants argue that they were not under an obligation to establish that the Principal Appellant's community has sufficient power, wealth or influence to mount a nation-wide search for him or his family. The Appellants argue that their obligation was to demonstrate that there is a serious possibility of their being persecuted in the IFAs. The Appellants do not, however, make submissions that they met their obligation. [40] I agree with the RPD that the Appellants did not provide evidence to support their allegations that the Principal Appellant's community members would find them in Lagos or Ibadan or that the community has kidnappers and killers working for them. I find that the Appellants did not, therefore, meet their obligation to demonstrate that there is a serious possibility of their being persecuted in the proposed IFAs. [41] The Appellants also argue that the RPD did not take account of the explanations given by the Principal Appellant about his sister and rejected them as unreasonable without explaining why they are unreasonable. This is not correct as the RPD reasons specifically reference the Principal Appellant's explanations: The Panel then asked why the community members were unable to find his sister living in Lagos. The principal claimant testified that when his elder sister decided to go to Lagos she did not inform anyone from the community for a long time. However, about three years ago, the principal claimant stated that someone from the community brought the information back to the community members that she was in Lagos and had children. Shortly after that, she was asked to bring her two daughters to the village for FGM. When asked by the Panel whether his sister's daughters went through the FGM procedure, the Panel learned that they had not.47... The principal claimant mentioned that because of the pressure his sister is receiving from the community, she is now considering bringing her daughters for FGM. For the Panel, at the day of the hearing, there was no evidence that the principal claimant's sister had brought her daughters for FGM or was forced to do so, and therefore, it shows that she is still capable of refusing the demands of her community.48 [42] I find that the RPD met its obligation to assess the Principal Appellant's explanation and to conclude that it did not reasonably explain why, after three years of being found by the community, his sister's daughters had not been subjected to FGM. [43] The RPD also noted that Lagos is a huge urban centre in Nigeria. The objective evidence confirms the sizable population of Nigeria, 203 million, and of the proposed IFAs: Lagos 13. 5 million and Ibadan 2.9 million.49 [44] 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;50 * In Nigeria, parents appear to have the ability to refuse FGM;51 * According to some sources, a parent's consent is important for any ritual on a child in Lagos;52 * The sources give no indication of risk of kidnapping and forced FGM where the parents are not consensual;53 * 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;54 * 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.55 [45] The documentary evidence does not indicate a practice of taking children by force to perform FGM in Nigeria over the objections of their parents. 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.56 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 Appellants' claims that the Principal Appellant's community will harm them because they have refused to have their daughters circumcised or that the community would kidnap the minor female Appellants to have them circumcised if they were to return to Nigeria. [46] With respect to the first prong of the IFA test, following my assessment of the RPD findings, the arguments of the Appellants and my own review, I find that the Appellants did not demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that they would face more than a mere possibility of being persecuted in Ibadan or Lagos. Second prong of the IFA test: it is not objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh for the Appellant to relocate to the proposed IFAs [47] The issue is whether it would be reasonable, in all the Appellants' circumstances, for them to relocate to the proposed IFAs in Lagos or Ibadan. The Appellants seem to argue that the RPD erred by not applying the second prong of the IFA test, which it clearly did devoting two pages and 13 paragraphs to its analysis.57 The Appellants do not, however, make any submissions about the reasonableness of the proposed IFAs. As detailed below, I have considered the record and the findings of the RPD, and undertaken an assessment consistent with the framework set out in the IFA Jurisprudential Guide, to conclude that it would not be unduly harsh or objectively unreasonable for the Appellants to relocate to the proposed IFAs. [48] When asked to imagine there were no issues with his community, FGM and cult initiation, the Principal Appellant was asked by the RPD if he could live somewhere else in Nigeria. The Principal Appellant testified that he could live near his home state. He said that he could not live in Lagos because "life is still very cheap there - life is very violent in all those areas." When asked if he could live in Ibadan, he said that there are kidnappings and ritual killings in the southwest which includes Lagos and Ibadan.58 [49] Transportation and travel: I agree with the RPD that the Appellants would be able to travel safely to the IFAs and stay there without facing undue hardship. Lagos and Ibadan are major urban areas of Nigeria, and Lagos is serviced by an airport which would allow the Appellants to return directly.59 [50] Language: As noted by the RPD, the adult Appellants testified and responded to questions in fluent English and listed their languages as English and Igbo in their BOCs.60 I find that the Appellants will not face language barriers in the proposed IFAs since English is the official language of Nigeria. [51] Education and employment: The RPD noted that the adult Appellants both went to university. The Principal Appellant completed a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and a post-graduate program in XXXX61 and worked for 16 years in a XXXX where he held a number of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.62 The female adult Appellant graduated with a university XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX before63 she trained as a XXXX and established a XXXX with two employees.64 The Principal Appellant testified that it is possible he could find work in Lagos.65 Although the adult female Appellant said she could not find a job and could not necessarily start a baker shop due to oversupply of XXXX,66 the RPD concluded that her personal circumstances weigh in favour of her being able to find employment in Lagos, a very large city. [52] I find that the Appellants are in a better position than the average Nigerian to find employment due to their education and work experience and agree with the RPD that, as a family unit, they should be able to support each other in the move to the IFA. [53] Religion: The Appellants are Christian,67 so, as detailed above, they will have access to places of worship and other people who share their religious values in the proposed IFAs where the Christian religion is widely practised. 68 This could help facilitate their integration in the IFA. [54] Availability of medical and mental health care: The Principal Appellant testified that he did not have any health issues,69 and the female adult Appellant testified that she was in good health.70 [55] Criminality: The RPD noted the Principal Appellant's concerns about kidnapping and ritual killing in Lagos but found that his testimony about these risks was not supported by the objective evidence71 and that the level of criminality in Lagos is not so high as to render the IFA unreasonable. I note that criminality is an issue which affects all Nigerians and not the Appellants specifically. [56] Gender Guideline: The RPD reasons say that it considered the Gender Guideline.72 The Appellants argue that in assessing the reasonableness of the proposed IFAs, the RPD "did nothing more than pay lip service" to the Gender Guideline by mentioning without actually applying it. I do not agree with the Appellants. I find that, as detailed above, the RPD considered the following factors in determining the reasonableness of the IFAs: language; the Appellants' ability to travel safely; the employability of the female adult Appellant; religion; education; the Appellants' health; criminality in Lagos; and the support the female Appellants can expect from being part of a family unit. I find that the full range of factors contemplated by the Gender Guideline has been addressed in the IFA analysis. [57] With respect to the second prong of the IFA test, following my assessment of the RPD findings and my own review, I find that the Appellants did not meet their high onus to demonstrate that relocating to Lagos or Ibadan would be unduly harsh or objectively unreasonable in their particular circumstances. While I find that the Appellants could face hardship relocating to the proposed IFAs, "the hardship associated with relocation is not the kind that renders an IFA unreasonable."73 CONCLUSION [58] I agree with the RPD that the Appellants have a viable IFA in Lagos or Ibadan. I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no serious possibility of the Appellants being persecuted in the proposed IFAs and that it would not be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in all the circumstances for them to live there. [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 January 21, 2020 Date 1 X (Re), 2018 CanLII 52123 (IFA Jurisprudential Guide). 2 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 1 FC 706. 3 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). 4 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibits 2.1-2.6, pages 11-134 and Exhibit 4, pages 238-245. 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII). 6 Supra, note 1, X (Re), 2018 CanLII 52123. 7 Supra, note 2, Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 1 FC 706. 8 Supra, note 3, Chairperson Guideline 4:Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. 9 Supra, note 1, X (Re), 2018 CanLII 52123. 10 Ibid., X (Re), 2018 CanLII 52123. 11 Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1126 (CanLII), para. 7. 12 Supra, note 2, Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 1 FC 706. 13 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1994 1 FC 589. 14 Doherty v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 661. 15 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). 16 Melford-Jowoh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 455. See RAD decision X (Re), 2016 CanLII 106181 (CA IRB). 17 Dibia v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2017 FC 1076. 18 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tabs 1.7/16.2, 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. 19 Ibid., tab 1.11: Country Information and Guidance. Nigeria: Women fearing gender-based harm or violence. Version 3.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. August 2016, page 7, section 2.4.8. 20 Ibid., tab 1.6: Nigeria. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 19 November 2018, page 4. 21 Reynoso, Edith Isabel Guardian v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2110-94), Muldoon, January 29, 1996. 22 Cadena Ramirez, Francisco Jose v. M.C.I., 2010 FC 1276. 23 Jilani, Zia Uddin Ahmed v. M.C.I., 2007 FC 1354, para. 13. 24 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. 25 Supra, note 3, Chairperson Guideline 4:Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. 26 Ibid., Chairperson Guideline 4:Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. 27 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, National Documentation Package for Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tabs 1.7/16.2, United Kingdom. Home Office, Country Information and Guidance. Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0 (August 2016). 28 Ibid., tabs 1.7/16.2, page 9, section 6.3.1. 29 Ibid., tab 16.1, United States, Central Intelligence Agency, Nigeria. The World Factbook (November 14, 2017), tabs 1.15/16.5, L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde (July 4, 2017). 30 Ibid., tabs 16.1 and 1.15/16.5, Nigeria. L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde. L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde. Jacques Leclerc. 4 July 2017. 31 Ibid., tabs 5.9/16.9, 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. 32 Ibid., tabs 5.9/16.9. 33 Ibid., tabs 5.9/16.9. 34 Ibid., tab 16.12, United States. Department of State, Nigeria. International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 (August 15, 2017), page 2. 35 Ibid., tabs 12.6/16.3, 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). 36 Ibid., tabs 13.1/16.14, 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. 37 Ibid., tabs 12.6/16.13, 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. 38 Supra, note 2, Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706. 39 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. 40 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of February 18, 2019, Audio Recording 0:37:45-0:38:00. 41 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 5, RPD Decision, para. 9. 42 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 5, RPD Decision, para. 9. 43 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of February 18, 2019, Audio Recording 2:23:37-2:24:00, 2:29:00-2:30:44. 44 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of February 18, 2019, Audio Recording 2:33:00-2:33:38. 45 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of February 18, 2019, Audio Recording 2:33:40-2:34:00. 46 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of February 18, 2019, Audio Recording 0:53:55-0:58:30, 2:30:45-2:31:50. 47 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 6, RPD decision, para. 12. 48 Ibid., page 7, para. 15. 49 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tab 1.6: Nigeria. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 19 November 2018. 50 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. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 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. 55 Ibid., tab 1.22, para. 2.3.8. 56 Ibid., tab 5.12, page 2. 57 RPD-1, pages 8 and 9, RPD Reasons, paras. 18-30. 58 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of February 18, 2019, Audio Recording 2:21:40-1:23:37, 2:24:00-2:24:30. 59 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tab 1.1: Nigéria. L'Encyclopédie en ligne. Larousse. 60 RPD-1, Exhibit 2, pages 11, 25, 36, 46, 56 and 66. 61 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of February 18, 2019,Audio Recording 0:49:25-0:50:25. 62 Ibid., Audio Recording 0:47:50-0:48:50. 63 Ibid., Audio Recording 1:01:22-1:02:40. 64 Ibid., Audio Recording 1:00:15-1:00:55. 65 Ibid., Audio Recording, 2:26:10-2:26:25. 66 Ibid., Audio Recording 2:26:26-2:27:30. 67 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, page 11. 68 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, 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. 69 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of February 18, 2019, Audio Recording 0:52:20-0:52:30. 70 Ibid., Audio Recording 1:00:05-1:00:10. 71 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 21 December 2018, tab 7.19: Nigeria Watch: Seventh Report on Violence in Nigeria. Nigeria Stability and Reconciliation Programme. 2017. 72 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 5, RPD Reasons, para. 6. 73 Okechukwu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1142 (CanLII). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-07757 MB9-07758 / MB9-07759 / MB9-07760 MB9-07761 / MB9-07762 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 13 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