TC1-05340

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-05340 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision November 2, 2021 Date de la décision Panel C. Lindberg Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Monique Ann Ashamalla Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant) is a citizen of Nigeria. He alleges that he fears Fulani herdsmen who attacked his farm and others in a village in Kwara State in XXXX 2018 and returned in XXXX 2019 to attack farms in the area, killing four farmers. The Appellant came to Canada in XXXX 2019 and made a claim for refugee protection. [2] The Appellant's claim was heard by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) over two days, January 25, 2021 and April 15, 2021. By decision dated May 10, 2021, the RPD rejected his claim. The determinative issue was Internal Flight Alternative (IFA). The RPD found that the Appellant had viable IFAs in Lagos, Abuja, and Port Harcourt. DECISION [3] I dismiss the appeal. The determinative issue is IFA. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. NEW EVIDENCE [4] The Appellant submits new evidence.1 The new evidence consists of his Affidavit, sworn XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, and Exhibits D and E attached thereto.2 [5] According to subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),3 I can accept the evidence only if: i. it arose after the RPD decision; or ii. it was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to provide it before the decision. [6] If the evidence meets at least one of these requirements, I must decide that the evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.4 [7] Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Affidavit refer to evidence that is attached as Exhibits A to C, all of which was before the RPD and is in the record. Therefore, it is not evidence arising after the decision and it is not admissible. [8] I find that paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Appellant's Affidavit are admissible and Exhibits D and E are also admissible. Paragraphs 5 to 9 refer to the new evidence in Exhibits D and E and explain how the Appellant obtained it from his son on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021. Exhibit D includes letters from the Appellant's wife and son. The letters are dated after the RPD decision and update the Appellant with current information from the letter writers. Exhibit D also includes news reports and Exhibit E consists of news reports. The news reports are all dated after the RPD's decision and report on events occurring after that date. All of this evidence arose after the RPD decision and, accordingly, meets the statutory admissibility requirements. [9] The news articles are new because their contents as well as their publication dates post-date the RPD's decision. They appear to be from verifiable journalistic sources and they meet the requirement of credibility for purposes of admission as new evidence. The Appellant has provided an email showing how he received the letters and the articles sent by his son and I accept the letters as credible on their face. The letters and the news articles in Exhibits D and E are relevant because they are updates on activities of the Fulani herdsmen and the security situation in Nigeria, including in areas where the IFA locations identified by the RPD are situated. No oral hearing [10] The Appellant has requested an oral hearing.5 The Refugee Appeal Division's (RAD) power to hold an oral hearing arises only when there is new evidence that raises a serious issue with respect to credibility of a person who is the subject of the appeal, that is central to the decision, and that would be determinative of the refugee claim.6 The evidence in the articles is independent evidence of country conditions and does not raise an issue as to the Appellant's credibility. The letters contain evidence from family members about circumstances in Kwara State and their impressions of the security situation, there and elsewhere in Nigeria. This evidence does not raise a serious issue with respect to the Appellant's credibility that would be central and determinative. Therefore, I will not hold an oral hearing. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [11] My role is to look at all of the evidence and independently determine whether the RPD made the correct decision.7 There is an exception to this general rule. The exception allows the RAD to defer to the RPD on a credibility finding where the RPD had a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of oral evidence. I do not find that the RPD had any meaningful advantage. Therefore, I have reviewed the decision on a correctness standard. ANALYSIS [12] The RPD found that the Appellant had viable IFAs in Abuja, Lagos, and Port Harcourt. The Appellant raises three issues on the appeal: (a) Did the RPD err in finding that the Appellant's claim does not have a nexus under section 96 of the IRPA? (b) Did the RPD err in assessing the Appellant's credibility? (c) Did the RPD err in its assessment of the IFAs?8 [13] On an independent assessment, I find that the RPD was correct in rejecting the claim because the Appellant has a viable IFA. In the reasons that follow, I explain why I am not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments, addressing them to the extent that they are relevant to the determinative issue of an IFA. [14] For purposes of the analysis, I accept that the Appellant has established, on a balance of probabilities, the allegations set out in paragraphs 7 to 14 of the Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 244-245 of the Appellant's Record. The RPD correctly found that the Appellant's claim does not have a nexus under section 96 [15] The RPD assessed the Appellant's claim under section 97(1) of the IRPA, finding that the Appellant fears being harmed by non-state actors because of a personal vendetta due to a dispute over land. The Appellant argues that, because of his actions following the attacks by Fulani herdsmen, his fear of persecution has a nexus under section 96 based on political opinion, actual or perceived. I am not persuaded by his argument. On an independent assessment, I find no error in the RPD's conclusion that the Appellant's claim does not have a nexus to a Convention ground. My reasons follow. [16] In arguing that his claim has a nexus to the Convention, the Appellant relies on a number of RAD decisions assessing claims against Fulani herdsmen under section 96. Although tribunals strive to promote a consistent approach to the issues, each appeal is decided on its own facts. Furthermore, I am not bound by other RAD decisions, but I have considered each of the decisions cited by the Appellant. I find, in each case, that the facts are not similar to those in the Appellant's claim. [17] The Appellant refers to a decision in which the RAD found that the Fulani herdsmen imputed political opinions to the claimant because they perceived him as a leader who had mobilized other farmers and youth against them.9 There was evidence that he had engaged vigilantes against them and that the herdsmen believed he had incited youth to kill their cattle.10 There was evidence, in the form of a newspaper article, that the herdsmen had asked for the claimant by name.11 The Appellant's evidence does not indicate that he played a leadership role or attempted to organize others to oppose the actions of the Fulani herdsmen or that the herdsmen perceived him as having done so. His evidence is that he went to the district head of the village to report the XXXX 2018 attack by Fulani herdsmen, the village head went to the police, the Appellant then went to the police because the village head asked that he go.12 The Appellant and three others are named in the police report as owners whose farms were attacked.13 With respect to the 2019 incident, the Appellant testified that, after hearing gunshots in the distance, he went to the village head and then, eventually, with the village head, to the police.14 The police report pertaining to this incident states that the village head came to the office with two other men.15 The Appellant's name does not appear in this report. [18] The Appellant argues that the RAD found that standing up to the Fulani herdsmen after prior attacks amounted to a political opinion.16 This is not what I understand the RAD's reasons to say. The panel stated as follows: The reasons why the Fulani herdsmen brutally persecuted the Principal Appellant in the past are multiple. Not only do they include the fact that he stood up against them when they damaged his farm installations, they also result from the fact that they impute political opinions against him as they perceive him as a leader who has mobilized other farmers and youth against them.17 I understand the RAD to be saying that the imputed political opinion flowed from the perception that the claimant was a leader who had mobilized others against the herdsmen. Even accepting, for the purposes of the analysis, that standing up against the herdsmen was a factor, I do not find that the Appellant has presented evidence that amounts to standing up against the Fulani herdsmen such that they would impute to him a political opinion. [19] I am not persuaded by the Appellant's argument that the letter from the district head confirms that the Appellant was significantly involved in the reports made against the Fulani herdsmen. The letter states that the Appellant "suffered a big setback in the hand[s] of these killer herdsmen" and confirms that he and the Appellant's son obtained copies of the police reports for the Appellant.18 The letter does not refer to the Appellant being involved in making the reports. However, I accept the Appellant's evidence that he went to the police station twice, after having been asked to do so following his reports to the village head. [20] I do not find that the evidence establishes the "vocal and active opposition" that the Appellant argues is the basis for his political, or perceived political opinion. The Appellant's evidence is that he reported the attacks to the police. The Federal Court has said that filing a police report or resisting criminality generally does not necessarily constitute a political opinion, actual or perceived.19 There is no evidence that the Appellant reported the attacks because of political convictions, rather than simply because he was a victim of crime. The Appellant argues that the Fulani herdsmen are motivated not only by a desire for land but also for political power. This may be so, but this does not lead to the conclusion that, in reporting their criminal activity to the police, the Appellant was expressing a political opinion or would be perceived by the herdsmen as holding a political opinion. The Federal Court has said that the existence of a political opinion and nexus to a Convention ground must be determined on a case-by-case basis.20 I do not find that the Appellant's evidence establishes that his claim has a nexus to political opinion, actual or imputed. [21] The Appellant argues that the RAD has found that claimants alleging persecution by Fulani herdsmen have been accepted as Convention refugees. The Appellant refers to the decision that I have already discussed and two other decisions. I find the facts in the other two decisions also differ significantly from the facts established by the Appellant. In one of the other two decisions to which the Appellant refers, the RAD accepted, for purposes of the IFA analysis, that a Christian woman who alleged a fear of persecution by Fulani herdsmen and Boko Haram based on religion and gender had a claim with a nexus to the Convention.21 The RAD did not analyze the issue of nexus nor are the facts similar to those in the Appellant's claim. Furthermore, the RAD dismissed the appeal, confirming the RPD's decision that there was a viable IFA.22 In the third decision, the RAD allowed the appeal and substituted a positive determination under section 96.23 In finding a nexus based on political opinion, the RAD referred to evidence that the principal claimant had been a long-standing outspoken critic of the violence committed against innocent civilians by Fulani herdsmen and that his activities were known in the community because he participated in public protests and was engaged in community organizations including youth organizations.24 The Appellant's evidence does not establish a similar profile. The RPD did not err in finding that the Appellant failed to establish that he received a threatening telephone call in Lagos, as alleged [22] The Appellant testified that he went to Lagos in XXXX 2019 and stayed there until coming to Canada in XXXX 2019.25 His testimony was that the Fulani herdsmen located him there, as he received a threatening phone call from an unknown male caller who said they knew where he was and they threatened to kill him.26 The RPD found that the Appellant did not establish the occurrence of this phone call, on a balance of probabilities. On an independent assessment, I find no error in this conclusion and I make the same finding. My reasons follow. [23] The Appellant argues that the evidence of the phone call is an elaborative detail and his failure to include it in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form is an insufficient reason to find that the evidence is not credible. I am not persuaded by his argument. The evidence of the telephone call is not evidence elaborating on an incident that is mentioned in the BOC. It is an entirely separate incident. Evidence that the Appellant was sought outside the area of his village is not minor or peripheral. It is highly relevant to the issue of an IFA. The Appellant relies on this evidence in arguing that he does not have a viable IFA.27 It is a material omission. [24] The Appellant's original BOC was signed on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 and he provided an amended BOC, signed on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, prepared with the assistance of counsel who represented him at the RPD.28 The amended BOC includes a detailed narrative.29 The Appellant refers in his BOC to security problems in Lagos that he alleges put his life and the lives of his family members at risk.30 He refers to criminal gang activity in Lagos, including in the area where he was living.31 His evidence is that he and his family were constantly living in fear.32 Yet, he does not mention the telephone call. When asked by the RPD to explain why he omitted this evidence from his BOC, the Appellant testified that he did not know that he had to write all these details because while he was in Lagos he saw online that Canada is accepting immigrants and that was when he started planning how he would leave Nigeria.33 I do not find that he has reasonably explained the omission from his BOC of any reference to the phone call. [25] The RPD found that the Appellant's testimony about the phone call was vague and unresponsive. The Appellant argues that his evidence should be accepted because he was consistent and credible regarding the crux of his claim. I am not persuaded by this argument. Finding that certain allegations have been established does not preclude finding that other allegations have not been established, on a balance of probabilities. [26] The Appellant further argues that the lack of specificity in his testimony should be viewed positively as he is not embellishing the nature of the incident and that his evidence must be viewed in the context of the phone call having occurred two years prior to the hearing, during a traumatic time in the Appellant's life. I do not find that the lack of detail in the Appellant's evidence about the phone call makes it more credible. The onus is on the Appellant to establish his allegations, on a balance of probabilities. He alleges that Fulani herdsmen tracked him down in Lagos and made a telephone call threatening his life. In his testimony, the Appellant did not say whether the caller used the Appellant's name. The Appellant did not say whether the caller specified that they knew he was in Lagos. He did not say when he received the call other than that it was while he was in Lagos between XXXXand XXXX 2019. I find no error in the RPD's assessment of the Appellant's testimony about the phone call as vague. The RPD did not err in finding that the Appellant has a viable IFA [27] The RPD found that Lagos, Abuja, and Port Harcourt were all viable IFA locations. The Appellant argues that the panel's analysis is flawed and that he does not have a viable IFA in Nigeria. The Appellant further argues that the RPD did not clearly assess each IFA location separately for its viability and that references to the IFA in the singular indicate that the panel did not correctly apply the test for each IFA location. I agree that it would have been better if the RPD had used the plural rather than the singular when referring to the IFA locations, given that the panel found they were all viable. However, my role is to conduct an independent assessment of the evidence and determine whether the RPD's conclusion that the Appellant has a viable IFA is correct. I find it unnecessary to determine whether the Appellant has a viable IFA in Abuja or Port Harcourt because, on an independent assessment, I find that the RPD was correct to conclude that the Appellant has a viable IFA in Lagos. My reasons follow. The legal test for an IFA [28] There are two prongs to the legal test for a viable IFA.34 The first prong requires that, in the IFA location, there be no serious possibility of persecution and, on a balance of probabilities, no risk under section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), meaning no danger of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The second prong requires that conditions in the IFA be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for the claimant to go and live there. [29] Once the issue of an IFA is raised and the potential IFA locations have been identified, the onus is on the claimant to show that they do not have an IFA.35 The standard is high and requires proof of adverse conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimant in travelling to and living in the IFA location.36 The Appellant has not established that an IFA is not viable under the first prong of the test [30] The RPD found that the Appellant did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Fulani herdsmen have the motivation and the means to find him in the IFA locations. The Appellant argues that the evidence indicates otherwise and that he would not be safe anywhere in Nigeria. I am not persuaded by the Appellant's argument. The Federal Court37 has held that an Appellant must demonstrate by actual and concrete evidence that it is more likely than not that they will be discovered if they relocate to the IFA. There can only be a serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm if the agents of harm have both the means and motivation to locate the Appellant.38 The Appellant has not established that the Fulani herdsmen have the motivation and the means to find him in Lagos, on a balance of probabilities. [31] I have accepted the Appellant's evidence that Fulani herdsmen attacked his farm in Kwara State. I accept the evidence from the Appellant's son that Fulani herdsmen are a continuing threat to farmers in the area of the Appellant's village and that they want to take over the Appellant's farmland.39 The Appellant was asked why the herdsmen would look for him in Abuja, Port Harcourt or Lagos and his answer, initially, was "I don't know".40 His testimony was that if he returned to the farm, they would take his life.41 The panel member asked him why the Fulani herdsmen would want to hurt him if he had given up his farm. The Appellant's answer was not responsive to the question. He testified that if he gave up his farm, he could not survive, they have taken away his farm and they have already taken away everything he has.42 The member asked him again why, if the Fulani herdsmen have his land, they would want to find him in Lagos, Abuja, or Port Harcourt.43 The Appellant's reply was that he has nothing in those places and does not know people there to re-establish himself and that he came to Canada for safety.44 When asked by his counsel whether the Fulani herdsmen would still want to harm him if he went to live in Abuja or Port Harcourt, the Appellant testified that he cannot say because he cannot predict the Fulani herdsmen because with what is happening in Nigeria there is no one that can be assured he will not be attacked again.45 When asked if the Fulani herdsmen would leave him alone if he gave up his farm and gave them the land, he testified that they should be able to leave him alone but he does not know their mind.46 His testimony was that he has heard of situations where people have been killed or kidnapped after the Fulani herdsmen took their land.47 [32] The independent evidence indicates that violent attacks by Fulani herdsmen have become an increasingly serious problem in Nigeria. In the first half of 2018, over 1,300 Nigerians died in violence involving herders and farmers, and what were once spontaneous attacks have become premeditated campaigns in which herdsmen often take villages by surprise at night.48 The conflict is fundamentally over land use in the country's Middle Belt, with religious and ethnic dimensions because most of the herdsmen are Muslim Fulani and most of the farmers are Christians of varying ethnicities.49 The Appellant argues that the Fulani attack out of vengeance and there is evidence of attacks motivated by retribution and revenge.50 I accept this evidence but do not find it assists the Appellant to establish that the Fulani herdsmen are motivated to seek him out in Lagos. The evidence of attacks motivated by vengeance refers to foreign Fulani herdsmen avenging past attacks on them and their livestock.51 The evidence of attacks driven by retribution and revenge concerns attacks in rural areas where farmers have attempted to defend themselves, using weapons, or have attacked herders.52 There is no evidence that the Appellant was involved in such events. Nor is there evidence of attacks motivated by retribution or revenge taking place in urban areas, where the issues of grazing rights and land use do not arise. [33] The Appellant's evidence is that he left his village after the Fulani herdsmen's attack in XXXX 2019 and went to XXXX, 75 kilometres away, where he lived with his wife until XXXX 2019.53 During that time, he heard from villagers that the herdsmen were looking for the farmers so he did not feel safe in XXXX but nothing happened to him there.54 In XXXX 2019, the Appellant moved to his sister's in Lagos, where he stayed until coming to Canada in XXXX 2019.55 He testified that his wife was living in Lagos at the time of the RPD hearing.56 The Appellant's testimony was that she was living in hiding.57 When asked why she was hiding, he testified that she was trying to stay safe from the Badoo Boys, a criminal gang in Nigeria.58 [34] The Appellant's new evidence from his wife is a letter dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021 in which she gives her address in XXXX.59 The Appellant's son also writes from XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, saying he has been trying to take steps to go back to work on their farmland but is not able to do so because it would be a risk to his life.60 The Appellant's son writes that farmers in the village continue to be at risk. I accept this evidence. However, this is not evidence that the Appellant would not be safe in Lagos. Neither the Appellant's wife nor his son indicate that the Fulani herdsmen have tried to find the Appellant. [35] The Appellant argues that the Fulani herdsmen are active throughout Nigeria and would be able to find him anywhere. When the Appellant was asked how the Fulani herdsmen would find him, he testified that some of them are powerful and wealthy and he knows this from reading it in the newspapers.61 I do not find that the evidence establishes that the herdsmen have the capacity to locate the Appellant in any of the IFA locations, on a balance of probabilities. [36] There is evidence of some attacks by Fulani herdsmen outside their main area of operations, the Middle Belt area. For example, there is evidence of attacks on farmlands in Lagos State62 and Rivers State.63 There is evidence of kidnappings on the Kaduna-Abuja road,64 and of the abduction of bus passengers on the Enugu-Port Harcourt road.65 The evidence does not indicate that the herdsmen carry out attacks in densely populated urban areas such as Lagos. In any event, the evidence of Fulani herdsmen's activities in regions of Nigeria outside Kwara State is of limited relevance, given that the Appellant has not established that the herdsmen would be motivated to locate him.66 The Appellant's farm was attacked by Fulani herdsmen, as were other farms in his village. These attacks took place in XXXX 2018 and XXXX 2019. The Appellant reported attacks to the village head and subsequently attended at the police station, because the village head asked him to do so. I do not find that this gives rise to a profile such that, on a balance of probabilities, the herdsmen would be motivated to look for the Appellant. As I have already discussed, there is no evidence that the Appellant took a leadership role in organizing resistance to the herders. I have accepted that the herdsmen wish to use the Appellant's farmland, but I do not find that this establishes that they have any interest in locating the Appellant outside his village, specifically, in Lagos. [37] The Appellant has not established what methods the Fulani herdsmen would use to find him in the IFA location. He argues that it is incorrect to say that the Fulani herdsmen do not have connections to the state, given that the current President is from the Fulani ethnic group. I find no merit in this argument. The President's ethnicity is not evidence that the Fulani herders have connections to the state that they can use to locate people in order to carry out attacks against them in urban areas. The evidence on which the Appellant relies indicates that security forces are sometimes perceived to be complicit with both sides of the conflict by stealing or allowing the sale of cattle, and by attacking civilians.67 This is not evidence that the Fulani herdsmen are able to use alleged state connections to track down people who have fled to urban centres in other parts of Nigeria. [38] Even if the Fulani herdsmen could locate the Appellant, which the Appellant has not established, this would not negate the finding that they do not have the motivation to do so.68 The Appellant has not established that the Fulani herdsmen have the means and the motivation to locate him in Lagos, on a balance of probabilities. [39] The Appellant argues that he would need to hide in order to be safe in any of the proposed IFAs. I do not accept this argument. I find no reason the Appellant would need to hide in Lagos, given that he has not established that the Fulani herdsmen are motivated to seek him out there. He further argues that it is unreasonable to expect family members to place their own lives in danger by denying knowledge of the Appellant's whereabouts. I am not persuaded by this argument. The Appellant's evidence is that he would reunite with his wife so, presumably, she would live with him in Lagos.69 There is no evidence that the Fulani herdsmen have approached any of his family members, seeking to determine his whereabouts nor has he established that they are motivated to locate him. [40] The Appellant's evidence is that he fears being the victim of crime in Lagos, particularly, because of the Badoo Boys criminal gang activities.70 He testified that they invade the neighbourhood where he lived and his wife stayed, but that they did not do anything to him or his wife or sister.71 The Appellant's testimony was that they did not have an issue with him but it was an unsafe area because of the presence of the Badoo Boys.72 Regrettably, there is evidence of a generally high rate of crime in Nigeria. However, I do not find that there is actual and concrete evidence that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant's life or safety would be in jeopardy in Lagos. The Appellant has not established that an IFA is not viable under the second prong of the test [41] The RPD assessed the reasonableness of the IFA locations in relation to travel, language, employment, education, and accommodation. On an independent assessment, I find no error in the RPD's conclusion that the Appellant did not establish that it would be unreasonable for him to relocate to Lagos, on a balance of probabilities. In assessing the reasonableness of the IFA, I have considered indigeneship and access to health care. I have considered the Appellant's particular circumstances and the independent evidence of country conditions. My reasons follow. Employment, education, and language [42] The Appellant's evidence is that he has 16 years of education, including five years in university.73 He has a XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX.74 He was employed as a civil servant from 1984 until 2017, when he retired from the position of XXXX XXXX at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Kwara State.75 Following his retirement, he worked on his farm, using it for cultivation and cattle breeding.76 The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to consider that he is retired, that he was unable to obtain a pension, and that he was unable to find employment after his retirement. I find that the RPD considered the Appellant's circumstances. The panel referred to the Appellant's evidence that his age and health issues would make it more difficult for him to find work and that he is of retirement age. The panel concluded that his high level of education and his employment experience place him in a better position to find employment than the average Nigerian and that the evidence did not establish that his health conditions would impede his ability to work. I find no error in this. I reach the same conclusions for the reasons that follow. [43] The RPD found that language would not be a barrier for the Appellant because he speaks English, the official language of Nigeria, and Yoruba. The Appellant argues that his evidence was that he speaks "some" English. He listed Yoruba and English as languages spoken in his Basis of Claim Form.77 His testimony was that he speaks Yoruba and English.78 Yoruba is also one of Nigeria's three major languages.79 Yoruba is the dominant ethnic group and the main language used in Lagos.80 I find that there are no linguistic barriers to the Appellant's relocation to Lagos or to his ability to find work there. [44] There is a high unemployment rate in Nigeria, as high as 27.1 percent in the second quarter of 2020.81 There is also evidence that the unemployment rate in Lagos State was 19.5 percent in the second quarter of 2020.82 Lagos is the most populous city in Nigeria; estimates of the population range from over 14 million to 21 million.83 Lagos is described in African Business as an economic hub; other sources describe it as "highly commercial" and the most productive and dynamic part of Nigeria's economy.84 Metropolitan Lagos accounts for over 53% of manufacturing employment in Nigeria and manufacturing industries in Lagos State include chemicals and pharmaceuticals.85 The Appellant has far more education than the average Nigerian man, as well as a solid record of employment. The average Nigerian man completes 9 years of education.86 While the Appellant might prefer to retire, I do not find it unreasonable to expect him to continue working, at the age of 64. The medical evidence that he presented is that he has a history of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXXandXXXX XXXX and that he takes seven different prescription medications.87 When asked if he would be able to find work in Nigeria, he testified that there are no jobs in Nigeria and that since he came to Canada he has not been able to work because of his health and he does not have the energy for it.88 There is no evidence in the doctor's letter that the Appellant's health conditions restrict his activities. Nor has the Appellant presented evidence that he would be unable to find a job that he is able to do, given his health conditions.89 I do not find that the Appellant's age and health condition are evidence that he would be unable to work or unable to find work of any kind. [45] The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to consider the Appellant's evidence that the reason he took up farming was because he could not support his family financially after retiring from the civil service. His evidence was that his pension stipend was inadequate.90 The Appellant's evidence is that after he left his position in XXXX, he lived in XXXX or on his farm.91 I do not find that this establishes that he would be unable to find work in Lagos. I find that the Appellant's level of education and employment history favour his ability to find work. The Appellant did not present any evidence about attempts to find work. He argues that he would likely have to find work in the informal sectors of the economy, due to his age, and because he has retired and would not be seeking formal employment.92 I find that the Appellant could obtain work, on a balance of probabilities, despite his preference for retirement. The court has held that it is not enough for refugee claimants to say that an IFA is unreasonable because "they may not be able to find suitable work there".93 Accommodation [46] According to sources, there is a housing problem in Lagos, with single women being most disadvantaged in the housing market.94 Apart from issues of gender discrimination, the ability to obtain accommodation in Lagos is largely dependent on the ability to pay.95 As the RPD noted, access to accommodation is but one factor to consider in assessing the reasonableness of an IFA. The Appellant's evidence is that he has lived in XXXXandXXXX XXXX at various addresses, in addition to living in the village and at his sister's in Lagos.96 His testimony was that he and his wife have stayed with his sister in Lagos, as does his adult son when he is not in XXXX.97 The Appellant's history of finding housing in Nigeria and the sister's ability to accommodate the Appellant likely facilitates his relocation to Lagos until he is able to find employment and, consequently, housing for himself and his wife. Access to health care [47] The Appellant argues that an IFA in Nigeria is unreasonable for him because he will not be able to obtain adequate health care. I have considered the evidence that he presented regarding his health issues. He testified that he had XXXX and that it seems he is XXXX, he has XXXX, and he is on medication for XXXX XXXX.98 He testified that he sees a specialist for his XXXX problem and he has a XXXX for which maybe he will need surgery.99 He also testified that his XXXX has caused a lot of trouble for him but he has not seen a XXXX or a XXXX.100 The Appellant's evidence includes medical consultation reports, the most recent report dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021.101 The report indicates a history of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXXand XXXX and lists the medications that he takes to manage his health conditions. The doctor states that the Appellant is doing well from a XXXX perspective. The Appellant testified that when he got sick in Nigeria he went to the hospital.102 His testimony was that he started treatment in Nigeria for his XXXX.103 His evidence includes a letter from the Islamic Medical Association of Nigeria, University of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, stating that the events that befell the Appellant predisposed him to illnesses and that the community came to his aid.104 In their letters, the Appellant's wife and son express concern about the Appellant's health.105 [48] The Appellant argues that he is living with serious medical problems. I accept his evidence that the experiences of the last several years have been challenging for him, in terms of the impact on his state of mind, but he has not presented any medical evidence that he suffers from a mental health condition that requires treatment. I accept that he has the medical conditions indicated in the doctor's report and that he requires the medications that he is taking.106 I do not find that the Appellant has established that he would be unable to obtain necessary health care in Lagos. The country evidence indicates that Nigerians have poor access to health care and poor health outcomes, particularly outside major urban centres.107 Access to medical services is inadequate, with most Nigerians unable to afford health care.108 The Appellant's profile differs from that of most Nigerians, in that he is highly educated and, as I have already explained, I find that he has not established that he would be unable to obtain work. A US report is quoted as stating that much of the healthcare infrastructure is confined to major cities, with people living in urban areas getting four times as much access to healthcare as those living elsewhere.109 According to one report, access to prescription drugs is better in urban areas of the country and there is evidence that patients have access to generic drugs, which are cheaper and more affordable to the majority of people.110 The federal government stocks drugs and pharmaceutical products in the Central Medical Store in Lagos.111 The evidence also indicates that human resources to manage the medical aspect of cardiovascular disease are adequate and that treatment is possible in public hospitals.112 Travel [49] The Appellant argues that there is evidence of incidents on and around the roads to the proposed IFAs. Lagos has an international airport. I see no reason the Appellant would not be able to travel safely to Lagos. Religion and indigeneship [50] The Appellant has not argued that relocation to Lagos would be unreasonable for reasons of religion or indigeneship. Nonetheless, I have assessed these factors. The Appellant's evidence is that he is Muslim, as is about half the population of Nigeria. Although Christianity is the major religion amongst the Yoruba people in the south, the evidence indicates that major cities are a fluid mix of different ethnicities and religions.113 I find that the evidence does not indicate that the Appellant would face issues related to religion or indigeneship in Lagos. The Appellant has not established the unreasonableness of relocation to Lagos [51] The RPD noted that the courts have set a very high threshold for the unreasonableness prong of the test for an IFA, requiring nothing less than proof of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimant in travelling to and living in the IFA location.114 The onus is on the Appellant. While relocation to Lagos may not be easy, on an independent assessment, I find that the Appellant has not established the existence of conditions that meet the high threshold of unreasonableness. I find the RPD's decision is correct. CONCLUSION [52] I find that the RPD correctly concluded that the Appellant has a viable IFA. I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) C. Lindberg C. Lindberg November 2, 2021 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 15. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 16-17, pp. 208-220, pp. 222-242. 3 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, subsection 110(4). 4 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 15. 6 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, subsection 110(6). 7 M.C.I. v. Huruglica (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas Del Solar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2645-17), Diner, November 14, 2018, 2018 FC 1145. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 247, para 21. 9 X (Re), 2019 CanLII 136656 (CA IRB), at para 39. 10 X (Re), 2019 CanLII 136656 (CA IRB), at paras 2, 8, and 21. 11 X (Re), 2019 CanLII 136656 (CA IRB), at paras 8, 21, and 36. 12 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 20, lines 26-39, and at p. 21, lines 13-45. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at p. 171. 14 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 30, lines 4-21. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at p. 173. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 254, para 51. 17 X (Re), 2019 CanLII 136656 (CA IRB), at para 39. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, at p. 195. 19 Lozano Navarro v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 768, at para 21; Neri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 1087, at para 25. 20 Khedri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 326, at paras 14-17. 21 X (Re), 2017 CanLII 149477 (CA IRB), at paras 13-14 and 16. 22 X (Re), 2017 CanLII 149477 (CA IRB), at paras 35-36. 23 X (Re), 2019 CanLII 140844 (CA IRB). 24 X (Re), 2019 CanLII 140844 (CA IRB), at para 12. 25 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 32, line 3. 26 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 32, lines 8-15; Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 5, lines 39-40. 27 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 261-262, at para 84. 28 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 2, line 38 to p. 3, line 7. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at pp. 21-23. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 22, lines 54-56. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 22, lines 56-60. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 22, line 61. 33 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 32, lines 17-21. 34 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), p. 710; Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589. 35 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 FC 706 at 710. 36 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.); Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589. 37 Momodu, Cordilia Gift v. M.C.I. (F.C., no.IMM-656-15), Annis, December 9, 2015; 2015 FC 1365. 38 Mayorga Gonzalez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 987 at paras 3-31. 39 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 209. 40 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 32, lines 40-44. 41 Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 5, lines 40-43. 42 Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 5, line 45 to p. 6, line 3. 43 Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 6, lines 7-8. 44 Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 6, lines 17-21. 45 Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 11, lines 35-37. 46 Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 12, lines 10-16. 47 Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 12, lines 22-23. 48 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 86. This document is item 7.20 in the current National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria, 30 June 2021. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 86. This document is item 7.20 in the current National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria, 30 June 2021. 50 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at paras 71-72. 51 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 141. 52 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 7.31. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request, 10 August 2018. NGA106152.E. 53 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 30, line 42 to p. 32, line 3. 54 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 31, lines 19-40. 55 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 31, line 42 to p. 32, line 3. 56 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 6, lines 7-16; Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 5, lines 9-11. 57 Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 11, lines 38-44. 58 Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 15, lines 11-18. 59 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 208. 60 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 209. 61 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 33, lines 1-25. 62 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 241-242. 63 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 236-238 64 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item. 7.36. ?Farmer-herder issue. CSW - Christian Solidarity Worldwide. June 2020, at p. 8. 65 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 239. 66 Abdullah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 76, at para 17. 67 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 7.31. ?Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request, 10 August 2018. NGA106152.E. 68 Ocampo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1058, at para 26. 69 Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 7, lines 12-19. 70 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 22, lines 55-63. 71 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 36, lines 3-38. 72 Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 4, lines 25-42. 73 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at p. 47. 74 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at p. 47. 75 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 5, lines 10-30. 76 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 21, lines 13-14. 77 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 26. 78 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 36, line 40 to p. 37, line 5. 79 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.15. ?Nigeria. L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde. L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde. Jacques Leclerc. 11 April 2021, at pp. 2-3. 80 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.26. ?Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 12 November 2020. NGA200338.E, at p. 5. 81 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.26. ?Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 12 November 2020. NGA200338.E, at p. 2. 82 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.26. ?Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 12 November 2020. NGA200338.E, at p. 5. 83 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.26. ?Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 12 November 2020. NGA200338.E, at p. 5. 84 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.26. ?Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 12 November 2020. NGA200338.E, at p. 6. 85 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.26. ?Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 12 November 2020. NGA200338.E, at p. 6. 86 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.6. ?Nigeria. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 8 June 2021, at p. 7. 87 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, at pp. 196-280. 88 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 34, lines 26-31. 89 Ifaloye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1110, at para 23. 90 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 21, lines 10-12. 91 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 18, lines 11-28. 92 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 266, para 106. 93 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No 1172, [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (F.C.A). 94 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.26. ?Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 12 November 2020. NGA200338.E. at p. 7. 95 National Documentation Package. (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.26. ?Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 12 November 2020. NGA200338.E. at p. 4. 96 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 14, line 40 to p. 18, line 28. 97 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 6, lines 9-15 and at p. 7, lines 13-16 and at p. 14, lines 38-48. 98 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 33, lines 40-45. 99 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 33, lines 45-48. 100 Transcript of April 15, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 6, lines 23-34. 101 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, at pp. 278-279. 102 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 34, lines 7-9. 103 Transcript of January 25, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 34, line 14. 104 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, at p. 188. 105 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 208-210. 106 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, at pp. 278-279. 107 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.9. ?Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Medical and healthcare issues. Version 3.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2020, at p. 6, para 1.1.5. 108 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.9. ?Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Medical and healthcare issues. Version 3.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2020, at p.6, para 1.1.15. 109 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.9. ?Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Medical and healthcare issues. Version 3.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2020, at p. 8, para 2.1.6. 110 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.9. ?Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Medical and healthcare issues. Version 3.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2020, at p. 10, para 5.1.4. 111 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item. 1.9. ?Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Medical and healthcare issues. Version 3.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2020, at p. 11, para 5.1.5. 112 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.9. ?Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Medical and healthcare issues. Version 3.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2020, at p. 14, para 6.5.1. 113 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2021), item 1.17. ?Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Internal relocation. Version 1.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. March 2019, at p. 5, para 2.2.1. 114 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 10, para 35. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-05340 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français