TB9-27044

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-27044 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision December 24, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Caitlin Maxwell Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Joanna Berry Barrister & Solicitor 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] These are my reasons for dismissing the appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX ("the Appellant"). The Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") upholds the determination of the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [2] The Appellant, a citizen of Nigeria, claims a fear of persecution based on her refusal to allow her daughters to undergo female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). Specifically, the Appellant alleges that her husband's relatives have threatened and physically attacked her for refusing to play her traditional role in FGM/C rituals for her daughters, which is a prerequisite to them undergoing the procedure. [3] The RPD determined the Appellant was not credible in its decision of 30 August 2019. The panel found a lack of subjective fear based on the Appellant's failure to claim asylum in the United States and reavailment to Nigeria, as well as implausibilities and discrepancies in her evidence. On appeal, the Appellant submits that the panel erred in its credibility assessment and that the evidence she seeks to admit on appeal further establishes her claim. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL Role of the RAD [4] Generally, I must review a decision of the RPD on a standard of correctness.1 The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of oral testimony, which may attract deference in particular cases.2 In this case, however, the RPD had no advantage. I have therefore considered whether its decision was correct. New evidence partially accepted [5] The Appellant seeks to admit the following evidence on appeal: a. Affidavit of the Appellant, XXXX XXXX 2019;3 b. Photos of the Appellant's husband's XXXX XXXX, undated but reported to be taken following the assault on the Appellant on XXXX XXXX 2015;4 c. XXXX report for the Appellant's husband, XXXX XXXX 2019;5 d. Letter from the Appellant's daughter, undated;6 e. Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019;7 f. Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019;8 g. Premium Times, "Female Genital Mutilation thrives in Oyo despite laws banning it," 1 June 2019;9 h. Affidavit of the Appellant's husband, XXXX XXXX 2019;10 i. Affidavit of the Appellant's aunt, XXXX XXXX 2019;11 j. Affidavit of the Appellant's husband's friend, XXXX XXXX 2019;12 and k. Affidavit of the Appellant's friend in the US, XXXX XXXX 2019.13 [6] In assessing whether to admit new evidence, I must consider the statutory requirements of IRPA s. 110(4), i.e. whether the evidence arose after the rejection of the claim, or was not reasonably available, or could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have been presented at the time of the rejection. I am also mindful of the Raza factors, which the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed in Singh are relevant to the assessment of new evidence before the RAD;14 namely, whether the evidence is new, credible, and relevant. [7] The Appellant's affidavit repeats allegations from her Basis of Claim narrative, provides additional background information on her husband's family, provides additional explanations about why her husband did not intervene to assist her when she was being attacked, and addresses the evidence she seeks to admit on appeal. It also contains evidence on further alleged abduction attempts on the Appellant's daughters in XXXX 2019, before the RPD hearing, and in XXXX 2019, before the RPD decision. The Appellant submits her RPD counsel advised her against adducing evidence that was not in her BOC narrative and that she did not know she could submit post-hearing evidence until she met her RAD counsel. [8] The affidavit of the Appellant's aunt also speaks to the events in XXXX and XXXX 2019, as well as an abduction attempt while the children were visiting their father's friend (she doesn't state when, but according to the Appellant's husband, this was on XXXX XXXX 2019). She also confirms that in XXXX 2019, the Appellant's children were transferred to day school from boarding school out of concern for their safety. [9] The letter from the Appellant's daughter is undated, but also speaks to the events in March and XXXX 2019 as well as the abduction attempt while the children were visiting their father's friend (she doesn't state when, but according to the Appellant's husband, this was on XXXX XXXX 2019). [10] The affidavit of the Appellant's husband discusses the events of XXXX XXXX 2015, as well as the abduction attempts in XXXX and XXXX 2019 and on XXXX XXXX 2019. It also states that his family members came to the house again on XXXX XXXX 2019 and threatened the Appellant with death. It confirms that the children are now in day school and miss their mother. [11] The photos of the Appellant's husband's XXXX are undated; however, they are reportedly injuries he sustained during the XXXX XXXX 2015 assault on the Appellant. The XXXX report post-dates the decision; however, the Appellant submits that it shows her husband is suffering from XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is another reason why he could not intervene to assist her. The Appellant submits she mentioned her husband's XXXX injuries as well as his XXXX XXXX to her RPD counsel, who advised her against admitting it. [12] The affidavit of the Appellant's husband's friend indicates that the Appellant's husband and children stayed with him from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, and that there was an abduction attempt on the daughters while they were at his home. [13] The affidavit of the Appellant's friend in the US confirms she stayed with him and that he advised her against claiming in the US and to return to Nigeria. The Appellant did not disclose in advance of the hearing that she had been to the US in 2017; she submits that her RPD counsel advised against including this information in her BOC and that he must have forgotten that she told him about it. [14] The news article about FGM in Oyo state pre-dates the RPD hearing. The Appellant submits it is relevant to the issue of IFA and that her former counsel did not include any country documentation in disclosure to the RPD. [15] Most of the evidence above speaks to events that occurred before the RPD hearing, on 18 July 2019, or before the RPD decision, on 30 August 2019. The relevant date is not the date the affidavits were sworn; an affidavit that post-dates the rejection but speaks to events that occurred before it is not "new" evidence, unless the Appellant can explain why it was not reasonably available or could not reasonably have been expected to be presented. [16] I am not persuaded by the Appellant's submission that she was advised against admitting evidence by her RPD counsel. With respect, the Appellant has not alleged her former counsel was incompetent. As the Federal Court of Appeal held in Singh, "it is settled that an [Appellant] must live with the consequences of the actions of [her] counsel."15 The evidence in question was accessible to her before the rejection of the claim; barring a complaint against her former counsel, for the purposes of admission on appeal the Appellant cannot now claim that had she been advised differently, she would have adduced the evidence.16 [17] Nor am I persuaded by the Appellant's explanation that she was not aware she could adduce post-hearing evidence. She was represented by counsel before the RPD, and, as noted, is not alleging her counsel was incompetent. If new events arose which she believed were relevant to her claim, she ought to have brought them to the attention of her counsel. [18] As Justice Walker explained in Eshetie, a RAD appeal is not a second chance to submit evidence to answer weaknesses identified by the RPD:17 In other words, responding to an inadequacy identified by the RPD in a party's case cannot be a legitimate foundation for the party to claim that had she known about the deficiency she could have presented better evidence [...]. This would make the RPD process a monumental waste of time, which is surely not Parliament's intention in providing appeal rights.18 [19] For these reasons, the evidence which addresses events prior to the rejection of the claim is not admitted. The affidavits which contain evidence which both pre- and post-dates the rejection of the claim will be admitted in part, as follows: * The Appellant's affidavit evidence regarding her children's transfer to day school, at paragraphs 44-45, and her reaction to the negative RPD decision, at paragraph 46, is admitted. The portions of her affidavit dealing with evidence already before the RPD and evidence which pre-dates the RPD rejection, paragraphs 4 to 43, and paragraphs 47-48, are struck. * The Appellant's aunt's affidavit evidence regarding the children's transfer to day school and their current situation, at paragraphs 9 to 14 of her affidavit, is admitted. The portions of her affidavit dealing with the incidents in XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX 2019, at paragraphs 2 to 8, are struck. * The Appellant's husband's affidavit evidence regarding the XXXX XXXX 2019 threats to the Appellant, the children's transfer to day school, and the children's current emotional state, at paragraphs 22-32, is admitted. The portions of his affidavit speaking to events that pre-date the rejection of the claim, at paragraphs 3-21, are struck. [20] The school letters post-date the RPD decision and speak to the transfer of the children from boarding to day school in XXXX 2019; they are therefore new. The letters are credible on their face, and broadly relevant to the appeal in that they address the current situation of the Appellant's children. They are therefore admitted. Oral hearing not required [21] The Appellant has requested an oral hearing if credibility is at issue. The RAD can only hold a hearing if there is new evidence that raises a serious issue with respect to the Appellant's credibility, which is central to the decision in the claim, and, if accepted, would justify accepting or rejecting the claim.19 In this case, I do not find the evidence regarding the XXXX XXXX 2019 threats or the children's transfer to day school raises a serious question of credibility determinative of the appeal. For this reason, there is no need to hold an oral hearing. ANALYSIS [22] The determinative issue on appeal remains credibility. For the following reasons, I agree with the RPD that the Appellant has not credibly established her claim. Reavailment to Nigeria undermines subjective fear [23] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding a lack of subjective fear based on the Appellant's failure to claim in the United States, where she visited from XXXX to XXXX 2017, and her subsequent reavailment to Nigeria. She submits that the panel should have accepted the explanation she provided at the hearing, namely that she tried to seek asylum, but she was advised against doing so - she was told that the US was not a good place because of President Trump's policies, and she should return to Nigeria; she lacked financial resources; and she could not afford a lawyer.20 She also relies on expanded explanations provided in her affidavit and the affidavit of the friend she was staying with in the US; however, I have already explained why this evidence is inadmissible on appeal. In any event, the explanation is essentially the same. [24] The Federal Court has held that a refugee claimant's reavailment to the jurisdiction in which she fears persecution can seriously undermine allegations of subjective fear, particularly in the absence of a compelling reason for such reavailment.21 With respect, the Appellant was claiming her life was at risk when she first travelled to the US. Regardless of the difficulties she was facing, it was reasonable to expect her to seek asylum rather than return to the country where she feared for her life. [25] I also note that when the Appellant left Nigeria the second time, she decided to make a claim in Canada by first travelling to the US and then crossing the land border. She testified that her husband had done research online and they decided she should come to Canada, because of the policies of the current US government.22 The Appellant has failed to explain why, if she did not want to make a claim in the US, she did not come to Canada rather than return to Nigeria in 2017. In response to this question at the hearing, the Appellant simply stated she did not really know anything about Canada then.23 I do not find her explanation reasonable, and agree with the RPD that her reavailment to Nigeria undermines her subjective fear of persecution. [26] The cases cited by the Appellant are distinguishable.24 While I agree there is no requirement to seek asylum in the first country of arrival, this was not the Appellant's situation. It is not so much the Appellant's failure to claim in the US as it is her reavailment to Nigeria which undermines her subjective fear. The issue was not that she passed through the US enroute to a safe country, but that she returned voluntarily to the country of alleged persecution. RPD did not err in its implausibility finding [27] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in finding it implausible that her husband would not intervene to defend her while she was beaten for multiple hours on XXXX XXXX 2017. The RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanations that it was taboo for her husband to lay a hand on an elder and that he would have been tagged as an outcast had he done so, as well as that her husband was outnumbered by three men who would have turned on him. The RPD noted that the Appellant and her husband did not adhere to traditional beliefs, and were already outcasts for refusing FGM/C. The panel also noted that his failure to intervene based on traditional customs was not consistent with his Christian beliefs. [28] On appeal, the Appellant argues that the panel's finding was based on speculation and stereotyping. She submits the panel would not have had the same expectation of a woman and that the Appellant's husband's beliefs do not fall into a neat binary; it is possible he still adhered to certain traditional customs while rejecting others. [29] I agree with the Appellant that the panel may not have expected a woman to physically intervene to defend her husband, and to this extent, the panel's finding relied on gender stereotyping. However, I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's husband's strict adherence to the custom about striking an elder for fear of being labelled an outcast was not plausible in the context of his alleged opposition to FGM/C. As the panel noted, the family had already been living as outcasts from the traditional community. They had also reportedly moved in order to hide from the husband's relatives. [30] Moreover, I note that the Appellant's evidence was that it was the boys from the village who were primarily involved in the beating: Further, on XXXX XXXX, 2017, my mother-in-law, my husband's uncle, XXXX XXXX XXXX, the head of their family with some boys from my husband's community living in Lagos came to our house and demanded that we must submit our girls for circumcision [...] The boys who came with my mother-in-law, uncle and the head of their family started hitting, slapping and pulling my hair. [...]25 [31] The Appellant has failed to explain why her husband could not have intervened with the boys, who presumably would not have qualified as "elders." I acknowledge that the Appellant has submitted various alternate explanations as to why her husband did not intervene on appeal, including that he has XXXX XXXX XXXX and a XXXX injury (which he allegedly incurred during the assault of XXXX XXXX 2015 while defending the Appellant,26 despite her initial statement in the narrative that he did not intervene during that incident).27 However, I have already explained why the Appellant's new evidence regarding this incident is not admissible. Even if it had been, its evolving nature would have raised further questions about the Appellant's credibility. [32] Finally, I note that the Appellant's husband could have intervened in non-physical ways - for example, by phoning the police or friends to assist. His failure to do anything is not plausible and undermines the Appellant's allegations regarding the incident in question. The RPD did not err in its conclusion in this regard. Irregularities on the face of the police report undermine its credibility [33] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of the police report relating to the above incident. The RPD noted that the police logo on the report was inconsistent with samples provided in the National Documentation Package ("NDP") because the colours did not match. It further noted that the date of issue, XXXX XXXX 2019, was listed as a Monday when it was in fact a Wednesday. The Appellant submits that these deficiencies are typographical in nature and not sufficient to discount the document. She further cites the presumption that documents issued by a foreign government are authentic, and that while the panel was entitled to draw appropriate inferences from defects on the face of the document, there was not a sufficient evidentiary basis to do so in this case and she should have been given notice. [34] According to the document prepared by the IRB Research Directorate which was cited by the RPD: According to sources, the Nigerian Police logo remains the same across the country (Junior Associate XXXX XXXX. 2018; Associate XXXX XXXX. 2017; Nigeria XXXX XXXX. 2017), because "Nigeria operates a federal police system" (Junior associate XXXX XXXX. 2018) or because "there is no state or local police in Nigeria" (Nigeria XXXX XXXX. 2017). In correspondence with the Research Directorate, the junior associate explained that "minor discrepancies ... due to a decentralized material (uniform and letterheads, etc.) production process" could occur, but that the "core elements (elephant and eagle, etc.) of the logo remain the same" (Junior associate XXXX XXXX. 2018).28 [35] The document also provides a sample of letterhead from the XXXX police station in Lagos,29 which is the same station the Appellant alleged to have obtained her report.30 Having reviewed both the sample and the report in question, I agree with the RPD that there are significant differences in the colours as well as the design of the logo. [36] In addition to the colour differences noted by the panel between the sidebar, elephant, eagle, and base, I note the following: * The eagle is solid, whereas it has a design on it in the sample; * The shape of the elephant's ear, legs and tail are different, and the line going across the body of the elephant is not present in the NDP sample; * The intersecting lines rising up from the back of the elephant to the eagle are more solid and rounded in the report provided by the Appellant whereas they are etched and squared off in the sample; * The sidebar (or ribbon) is not just straight up and down the left-hand side of the page in the Appellant's report, as it is in the sample; it has a diagonal ribbon intersecting with the elephant and the sidebar, which is not present in the sample; * Finally, the security watermark in the back of the sample (which repeats "The Nigeria Police" in small letters throughout the background of the report and has a larger image of the police logo in the centre of the page) is not present in the Appellant's report, which does not have any watermark or background. [37] The Federal Court has held that where there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on its authenticity, whether because of an irregularity on its face or the questionable circumstances in which it was obtained or provided, a document may be assigned little or no weight, without expert verification.31 The Appellant has had an opportunity to explain why her report differed from the NDP sample on appeal; her submission that the deficiencies are merely typographical is not persuasive. Considering all the above, I agree with the RPD that the report submitted by the Appellant should not be given any weight. RPD should have considered medical report, but report does not rehabilitate Appellant's credibility [38] The Appellant also argues the RPD erred in rejecting the medical report issued in relation to the XXXX XXXX 2017 incident, because it found the incident did not happen. While I agree that the panel should have turned its mind to the report rather than rejecting it outright, I am not persuaded that it rehabilitates the Appellant's credibility with respect to the incident. While the report indicates the Appellant had "multiple scratch marks and bruises involving the arms, forearms, back and face," the history of what happened was relayed by the Appellant herself.32 For this reason, I do not find the report sufficient to establish the Appellant's allegations, on a balance of probabilities. Remaining supporting evidence insufficient to establish allegations [39] The Appellant also submits that the RPD erred by failing to consider the totality of the evidence, including evidence of the beating on XXXX XXXX 2015; the family's attempts to relocate to Lagos in XXXX 2016 and to Abuja in XXXX 2017; and the Appellant's in-laws attendance at the children's school in XXXX 2017. Specifically, the Appellant argues that the panel ignored the affidavits XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. While I agree that the panel should have considered whether the remaining evidence was sufficient to establish the claim, having reviewed this evidence, I find that it does not overcome the significant credibility concerns in this case. [40] With respect, the incident of XXXX XXXX 2015 suffers from many of the same credibility problems as the XXXX XXXX 2017 incident discussed above. The Appellant's husband also reportedly did not intervene while three young men beat the Appellant at the instruction of his uncle.33 Again, the Appellant has failed to explain why her husband could not intervene-these young men were not reported to be relatives or "elders"-or why he did not call for assistance. As noted above, the Appellant has sought to admit evolving explanations on appeal regarding the fact that her husband did intervene and was injured, which I have not admitted, but which would only have called her credibility further into question. [41] Additionally, most of the affidavit evidence the Appellant alleges was ignored regarding this incident provides differing accounts of what happened. The affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX, a neighbour to the Appellant in Ibadan, states that he was a witness to the XXXX XXXX 2015 attack on the Appellant: That she was crying bitterly after beaten/ harassment from the hands of her husband's family members. It was her noise that I heard that faithful [sic] day that made me quickly come to their apartment and I met her lying on the floor crying with some scratches and bruises on her hand and face.34 [42] However, this is inconsistent with the Appellant's account in her narrative, which does not mention any other witnesses present: On XXXX XXXX, 2015, my mother-in-law came to our apartment and informed me and my husband that according to the customs and traditions of XXXX XXXX of Ogun State, I have a crucial role to play in the circumcision of our daughters. [...] About three hours later, she came back with my husband's uncle, XXXX XXXX XXXX, the head of their family, XXXX XXXX XXXX and three other young men. She told them in the presence of my husband that I insulted her because she told me that my daughters must be circumcised and the role I was expected to play in accordance of their customs and traditions. She lied against me that I slapped her in the heat of the arguments between us. Without waiting to hear my own side of the story, my husband's uncle slapped me and told the three young men to beat me up [...] I was beaten badly and I was crying helplessly in the presence of my husband who despite supporting me verbally did nothing to stop them from beating me. [...] After they left, I called my father who told me to remain steadfast in my resolution not to allow our daughters to be mutilated. [...]35 For this reason, I give it little weight. [43] The affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX, whose parents were tenants of the Appellant's in-laws, states that he was celebrating Christmas and New Year's with his parents at their home when the incident took place on XXXX XXXX 2015 and that it was "indeed a horrible scene and a bad experience for them."36 First, this evidence is vague. He does not specifically indicate what he witnessed. Second, it contradicts the Appellant's account of the incident because it suggests the beating was not in private, in the Appellant's apartment, but in front of others. For these reasons, I give it little weight. [44] The affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Appellant's father, indicates that on XXXX XXXX 2015, he "suddenly received a call from my daughter, crying bitterly on the phone and complaining about what her mother in-law and elders of her husband family did to her in the presence of some of her sister in-law during their Christmas party held in Ibadan."37 He goes on to state that he made arrangements for the Appellant to stay with her aunt in Lagos, and advised her to report to the police and hospital. He further indicates he was later told that her husband's family came to Lagos on XXXX XXXX 2017 and tried to see the children at their school. [45] The Appellant's father's account of the incident on XXXX XXXX 2015 is inconsistent with the Appellant's; her mother-in-law was not reported to have assaulted her; her sister-in-law was not alleged to be present. He was not a witness to the event, nor does he have direct knowledge of the alleged abduction attempt in XXXX 2017. For these reasons, I give his evidence regarding these events little weight. While he may have arranged for the Appellant to stay with her aunt, I do not find this sufficient to establish her allegations, on a balance of probabilities. [46] The affidavit of "XXXX XXXX" cited by the Appellant is from Mrs. XXXX XXXX, the Appellant's aunt.38 She indicates that the Appellant came to stay with her in Lagos on XXXX XXXX 2016 following "an attempted circumcision" on the Appellant's daughters, and that the Appellant later moved to a new apartment in Lagos and enrolled the children in a new school. The aunt's account of what transpired does not correspond with the Appellant's; while there was an argument about the daughters undergoing FGM/C, the Appellant has indicated she was beaten and not that there was an attempted circumcision. Nor does the Appellant's aunt have direct knowledge of the assault. For this reason, I give her evidence regarding the incident on XXXX XXXX 2015 little weight. While the Appellant may have stayed with her aunt, moved to a new apartment, and enrolled the children in a new school in Lagos, I do not find this sufficient to establish her allegations about her in-laws, on a balance of probabilities. [47] The police report filed in relation to this incident is also inconsistent with the Appellant's account, noting that she reported she was "tortured, beating up severally and molested by some in-laws" and that "uncles, mother in-law, sister in-law and young ones from the husband's family were also involved in the assault." 39 As noted above, the Appellant reported that her husband's uncle slapped her, and then instructed the three young men to beat her up; her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were not reported to have assaulted her; her sister-in-law was not alleged to be present. Additionally, this report also has deficiencies on its face. While the copy in the record is black and white, it contains the same intersecting ribbon with the sidebar which is not present in the sample provided in the NDP; as in the report above, the ear, tail, and legs of the elephant in the logo are different from the sample; the elephant's body also has a line across it, which is not consistent with the sample; nor is there any watermark. Given these issues, I do not give the report any weight. [48] As with the previous medical report, the report relating to the Appellant's treatment after the incident of XXXX XXXX 2015 contains the Appellant's self-reported information that she was "beating up" by her in-laws.40 While I acknowledge it states she had "severe pains," "injuries and marks all over face and arms," an "increase in breathing" and "scratching," I do not find this evidence sufficient to establish the events unfolded as alleged, on a balance of probabilities. I also note that in addition to typos in the body of the letter, the footer in the actual letterhead states "24 Hours Compressive Medical Services" and the hospital's contact information lists a Yahoo.com email address. While not determinative, these issues raise questions about the report's genuineness. [49] The affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX, who indicates he is a cousin and that the Appellant's husband is his uncle, specifically indicates he was not present during the beating incident of XXXX XXXX 2017 discussed above, but notes that his mother attended.41 He does not explain the source of his knowledge or how he came to find out about it. His information on who attended, including his mother, "other family members, uncles, elders of our town" is inconsistent with the Appellant's account of the incident, cited above, which indicates her husband's mother and uncle, the head of the family, and boys from the community attended. Given these inconsistencies and his lack of direct knowledge, I do not give the affidavit any weight. [50] The affidavit of the XXXX, a friend of the Appellant's husband, speaks generally to traditional practices and the pressure to conform with them.42 It indicates he sent his wife and children to the UK five years ago. It does not specifically address the Appellant's allegations. For this reason, I give it little weight. [51] The affidavit of XXXX XXXX, the Appellant's husband's friend, indicates he hosted the Appellant and her children in the XXXX of 2017 at his home in Abuja, but then started receiving threatening calls that he should not continue to assist them, and so they left his home and returned to Lagos.43 There are also bus tickets on the record showing trips by the Appellant to and from Abuja in XXXX and XXXX 2017.44 Even if I accept that the Appellant travelled to Abuja and that her husband's friend received threatening calls, given the significant credibility concerns in this claim, I do not find this evidence sufficient to establish that her in-laws are seeking to harm her, on a balance of probabilities. I also note, as discussed above, that the Appellant returned to Nigeria from the US after these threats, which suggests she did not take them seriously. [52] I have also considered the affidavit of Mrs. XXXX XXXX, a teacher at the Appellant's children's school.45 She indicates that in XXXX 2017, the children's grandmother, uncle, and another relative attended at the school to see the Appellant's son and elder daughter. She phoned the Appellant who advised they did not have permission to see the children, and who was unaware of how they located the school. Even if I accept that the Appellant's in-laws attended at the school, this does not establish that they are seeking to harm her. I note that the Appellant did not remove her children from the school and that she returned to Nigeria from the US after this incident, which suggests she was not overly concerned by it. For these reasons, I do not find the in-laws' attendance at the school sufficient to establish the Appellant's allegations, on a balance of probabilities. [53] I have also considered whether the evidence admitted on appeal is sufficient to establish the Appellant's allegations. The admitted evidence consists of portions of the affidavits of the Appellant, her husband, and her aunt, as well as letters from the children's schools, indicating that the children have been transferred to day school out of boarding school. The Appellant's husband also indicates that his relatives threatened his wife with death on XXXX XXXX 2019. [54] While I accept that the children have been transferred to day school from boarding school, I do not find this sufficient to establish the Appellant's allegations, on a balance of probabilities. Given that the RPD gave no weight to the husband's initial affidavit, noting that it was apparently sworn on XXXX XXXX 2018, well before the Appellant's departure from Nigeria on XXXX XXXX 2018 referred to in the affidavit, 46 a finding which has not been challenged on appeal, I do not find him to be a credible witness. I therefore do not find his recent allegation about further threats in XXXX 2019 sufficient to establish that the Appellant is at risk, on a balance of probabilities. [55] Ultimately, there is insufficient credible evidence on the record to establish the Appellant's allegations on a balance of probabilities. The RPD did not err in determining the claim had not been credibly established. RPD did not err by not referring to country documentation [56] Finally, the Appellant argues that the panel failed to assess the plausibility of the Appellant's conduct in light of the country conditions. The Appellant does not elaborate, except to say that the panel makes no mention of country conditions in its decision. With respect, the panel found the Appellant's allegations were not credible. I fail to see how reference to the country documentation would have rehabilitated the claim, and she has failed to explain as much in her submissions.47 The RPD did not err in this regard. CONCLUSION [57] For the reasons set out above, 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) "Caitlin Maxwell" Caitlin Maxwell December 24, 2020 Date 1 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, at para. 103. 2 Ibid., at para. 70. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Affidavit of the Appellant, pp. 11-22. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Photos of husband's XXXX, pp. 24-26. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, XXXX report, p. 28. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Daughter's letter, pp. 30-31. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Letter from XXXX, p. 33. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Letter from XXXX, p. 35. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Premium Times, "Female Genital Mutilation thrives in Oyo despite laws banning it," 1 June 2019, pp. 37-40. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Affidavit of the Appellant's husband, pp. 41-43. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Affidavit of the Appellant's aunt, pp. 44a-44b. 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Affidavit of the Appellant's husband's friend, p. 45. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Affidavit of the Appellant's friend in the US, p. 47. 14 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Singh, 2016 FCA 96, at para. 74. 15 Ibid., at para. 66. 16 Ibid., at para. 69. 17 Eshetie v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1036, at para. 33. 18 Ibid., citing Abdullahi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 260, at para. 15. 19 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27), s. 110(6). 20 Exhibit RAD-1, Transcript of RPD hearing, p. 55, lines 12-24. 21 Kostrzewa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1449 at para. 26, citing Hernandez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 197 at para. 21; Ortiz Garcia v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1346 at para. 8; Mughal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1557 at paras. 33-35; Natynczyk v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 914 at para. 69. 22 Exhibit RAD-1, Transcript of RPD hearing, p. 54, lines 47-50, p. 55, lines 1-3. 23 Ibid., p. 55, line 8. 24 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's memorandum, pp. 70-71, at paras. 73-76. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim ("BOC") narrative, p. 24, para. 10. 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, Husband's affiavit, p. 42, para. 16. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, BOC narrative, p. 22, para. 7. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (30 April 2019), Item 10.3, IRB Research Directorate, "Update to NGA105999 of 6 November 2017 on documents issued by police during criminal investigations or in response to a complaint, including police reports; procedures for an individual to obtain a copy of a police report within the country as well ..." NGA106208.E, 5 November 2018, at p. 7. 29 Ibid., at p. 9. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Police report, p. 99. 31 See, e.g., Grozdev, Kostadin Nikolov v MCI. (FCTD, no. A-1332-91), Richard, July 16, 1996 (letter and summons); Parvez, Mohammed v MCI (FCTD, no. A-1341-92), Gibson, October 18, 1996 (arrest warrant); Adar, Mohamoud Omar v MCI (FCTD, no. IMM-3623-96), Cullen, May 26, 1997 (passports and other identity documents); Culinescu, Rodica-Luciana v MCI. (FCTD, no. IMM-3395-96), Joyal, September 17, 1997 (order to stand trial); Hossain, Md Iqbal v MCI. (FCTD, no. IMM-1600-99), Tremblay-Lamer, February 4, 2000 (letter). 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, Medical report, p. 112. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, BOC Narrative, p. 22, para. 7. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Affidavit of XXXX, p. 88. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, BOC narrative, pp. 22-23, paras. 6-8. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Affidavit of XXXX, p. 91. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Affidavit of XXXX, p. 75. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Affidavit of Mrs. XXXX, p. 92. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, Police report, p. 114. See the NDP sample at supra note 28. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, Medical report, p. 113. 41 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Affidavit of XXXX, p. 86. 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Affidavit of XXXX, p. 73. 43 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Affidavit of XXXX, p. 94. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Bus tickets, pp. 100-101. 45 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, Affidavit of XXXX, p. 78. 46 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Reasons and Decision, p. 8, para. 21. 47 Refugee Appeal Division Rules (SOR/2012-257), s. 3(3)(g) requires Appellants to include full and detailed submissions regarding how the RPD erred, and specifically where the RPD erred in its decision; see also, Liu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 736, at para. 25; Yimer v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1335, at para. 16; Dakpokpo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 580, at para. 14. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-27044 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) 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 (January, 2020) Disponible en français