MB7-03986

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 File / Dossier de la SAR : MB7-03986 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 26, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Susan Brown Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Amina Muhammad Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) 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), a citizen of Cameroon, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated January 30, 2017, rejecting her claim for refugee protection because she has a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Yaoundé. The Appellant submitted new evidence pursuant to section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and I have accepted some of the new evidence. Following my independent assessment of all the evidence I dismiss the appeal and find that the RPD correctly identified a viable IFA in Yaoundé. BACKGROUND [2] According to her Basis of Claim Form (BOC)1 the Appellant was born in 1990. The Appellant's father died in 1999 and when her mother refused to marry her father's brother, she raised the Appellant and her six siblings alone. Unbeknownst to the Appellant her uncle had promised her as a wife to the chief of the XXXX XXXX (Village Chief). The Appellant found out in April 2016 while attending a death celebration for her father in the village, she refused to marry the Village Chief and was able to escape. In May 2016 the Village Chief came to the Appellant's house to circumcise her. With the help of her elder brother she escaped and eventually went into hiding with a Pastor. The Pastor and her sister helped the Appellant get a visa and she arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Appellant filed her claim for refugee protection on December 5, 2016. The claim was heard by the RPD on January 13, 2017 and an oral decision was given immediately following the hearing. SCOPE OF THE RAD REVIEW [3] Contrary to the submissions of the Appellant2 that the standard of review is reasonableness, the Federal Court has said that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) reviews decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it.3 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 a standard of review of reasonableness adapted to the RAD.4 Unless specifically stated below, I have applied the correctness standard. DETERMINATIVE ISSUE [4] The determinative issue is whether or not the RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant has a viable IFA in Yaoundé. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [5] Section110(4) of the IRPA provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [6] The Appellant submitted the following documents as new evidence pursuant to section 110(4) at the time she perfected her appeal: * Affidavit of the Appellant sworn April 5, 2017;5 * Cameroon-concord.Com, "U.S. Rep. Jackie Walorski condemns abuses against Anglophones by the Yaoundé Junta", March 18, 2017;6 * Cameroon-concord.Com, "Anglophone Consortium Publishes List Of Abducted Southern Cameroonians" February 15, 2017;7 * All Afrikan Network "Cameroon Anglophone Crises: Abuses are not only alarming, but pathetic - Rights Group" March 25, 2017;8 * Cameroon-concord.Com "Anglophone Crises Cameroon: Consortium Calls For Intensified Ghost Towns" February 15, 2017;9 and * Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium "Media Release Gov't Forces Multiply Arson in Southern Cameroons, Cause Deaths in Kondengui" March 14, 2017.10 [7] The Appellant argues that subsequent to the RPD decision which identified Yaoundé as an IFA, new evidence has emerged that highlights the rapidly deteriorating safety and security conditions for English-speaking Cameroonians all over Cameroon in general and in Yaoundé in particular.11 [8] Since all the new evidence references events that post-date the January 13, 2017 hearing when the Appellant's claim was rejected, it technically meets the requirements of section 110(4). The new evidence must also pass the additional legal tests of credibility, newness and relevance.12 [9] The Appellant says that the new evidence shows that English-speaking Cameroonians are being targeted by government authorities with widespread reports of extra-judicial arrests, detentions and disappearances in Yaoundé in particular and all over the country.13 [10] Given that the determinative issue on this appeal relates to Yaoundé as an IFA for the Appellant only the new evidence which addresses deteriorating safety and security conditions for Anglophones in Yaoundé is relevant. I have reviewed all the new evidence and determined, contrary to the submissions of the Appellant, that only one of the articles meets this criteria. The article entitled "Cameroon Anglophone Crises: Abuses are not only alarming, but pathetic - Rights Group" references a statement from the Mayor of Ndu temporarily located in Yaoundé14. This article also meets the newness requirement and is prima facie credible. I accept it as new evidence and I assess its probative value in my analysis below. [11] The other articles do not reference safety and security conditions in Yaoundé and not relevant and, therefore, not admissible as new evidence: * The article entitled "U.S. Rep. Jackie Walorski condemns abuses against anglophones by the Yaounde junta"15 addresses the arrest of Felix Agbor Nkongho, attacks on protesters and lifting the internet blackout in the majority English-speaking regions. Yaoundé is not located in those regions; * The article entitled "Anglophone Consortium Publishes List Of Abducted Southern Cameroonians"16 is a list of Southern Cameroonians arrested from Buea and Konye, not Yaoundé; * The article entitled "Anglophone Crises Cameroon: Consortium Calls For Intensified Ghost Towns" references strikes and protests by lawyers and teachers in the English-speaking regions of Cameroon. Yaoundé is not located in those regions; and * The article entitled "Media Release Gov't Forces Multiply Arson in Southern Cameroons, Cause Deaths in Kondengui" references events in Bamenda, not Yaoundé.17 ANALYSIS [12] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred when it improperly applied the IFA legal test and when it failed to consider relevant evidence, specifically the testimony of the Appellant and her witness regarding the Village Chief's influence and extensive reach and his ability to find her in Yaoundé. [13] The RPD complied with the procedural requirements to raise IFA before or during the hearing. The RPD gave notice at the commencement of the January 13, 2017 hearing that the issues identified as central to the claim were credibility and IFA.18 The potential IFA in Yaoundé was canvassed with the Appellant at the RPD hearings.19 Once the issue of IFA is raised, the onus is on a claimant to show that he or she does not have an IFA. IFA analysis [14] There are two elements to the test to confirm a viable IFA for a Convention refugee.20 First, I must be satisfied that there is no serious possibility of the Appellant being persecuted in the proposed IFA. Second, the conditions in the IFA must be such that it would not be objectively unreasonable (or unduly harsh), in all the circumstances, for the Appellant to live there. (i) No serious possibility of persecution [15] The RPD clearly addressed the first element of the IFA test when it did not find that that the Appellant faced more than a mere possibility of persecution in the capital city of Cameroon, Yaoundé. The RPD did not find it likely the Village Chief would learn of her presence in Yaoundé or otherwise ascertain her whereabouts within Yaoundé, a city of more than three million residents. The RPD found that even if the Village Chief had some political connections to the ruling party in Cameroon, there would need to be some method by which these connections would be alerted to the Appellant's whereabouts within the city of Yaoundé. The RPD found there was no objective evidence to shows that this is likely to happen. The RPD also found that the Appellant did not provide any reasons as to why she would be unable to live in Yaoundé other than her fear of the Village Chief who wants to marry her.21 [16] The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to consider relevant evidence, specifically the testimony of the Appellant and her witness regarding the Village Chief's influence and extensive reach and ability to find her in Yaoundé and relies on the testimony given at the hearing. [17] The Appellant's testimony was that it is a taboo to not marry a chief. The Village Chief will keep looking for her, sending people to look for her until they find her and she will remain in hiding for the rest of her life.22 The Village Chief has threatened her family.23 The Village Chief will send boys, securities and people to look for her.24 It is possible for the Village Chief to tell anyone that he wants this person to be found and they will do that because he is very influential and he is with the ruling party, CPDM.25 The Appellant's witness testified that the Village Chief had some connections with the ruling political establishment.26 [18] I have reviewed the supporting documentary evidence of the Appellant27 but it does not address her claim that she would be at risk in Yaoundé or address the Village Chief's influence, extensive reach and ability to find the Appellant in Yaoundé, so it does not corroborate the testimony of the Appellant and her witness. [19] I have reviewed all the objective evidence of the Appellant28 and did not find anything to corroborate the testimony of the Appellant. [20] Other parts of the Appellant's testimony mitigate against the Village Chief knowing where the Appellant is and persecuting her in Yaoundé. The RPD noted that the evidence of the Appellant was unclear whether the Village Chief was even aware whether or not she had left the country.29 The Appellant's mother refused to follow tradition and marry the Appellant's uncle after her father died.30 The Village Chief is the chief of a small village of XXXX in the northwest region31 which is far from Yaoundé. [21] Contrary to the argument of the Appellant, I find that the RPD did consider her testimony and that of her witness but found that there was no documentary or objective evidence to corroborate it. I find that the RPD properly applied the first element of the IFA test when it did not find that that the Appellant faced more than a mere possibility of persecution in the capital city of Cameroon, Yaoundé. Following my own analysis of the evidence I find that the Appellant has not met her onus to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that she faces more than a mere possibility of persecution in Yaoundé. (ii) Reasonableness [22] The second element of the IFA test may be stated as follows: would it be unduly harsh to expect the claimant to move to another, less hostile part of the country before seeking refugee status abroad? The test is an objective one: is it objectively reasonable to expect the claimant to seek safety in a different part of the country? There is a very high threshold for what makes an IFA unreasonable in all the circumstances.32 [23] The RPD addressed the second element of the IFA test when it found that it would not be objectively unreasonable for the Appellant to relocate to Yaoundé. The RDP found that the Appellant did not provide any reasons as why she would be unable to live in Yaoundé other than her fear of the chief who wants to marry her. [24] The RPD considered how the Appellant's status as a woman in a male-dominated society would affect her ability to live in Yaoundé and noted that while discrimination exists in Cameroon the level varies by region with the northern Muslim area and rural parts of the country being particularly difficult for women. With respect, however, to Yaoundé the RPD went onto to cite objective evidence from the National Documentation Package (NDP)33 which directly addresses the issue: Two sources state that it is possible for a woman to live alone in Cameroon's large cities, such as Yaoundé or Douala, as long as they have the necessary resources; these same sources added that the level of education influences the quality of employment.34 [25] The RPD noted that the Appellant had established a store in Buea selling medicine, she received post-secondary education in nursing at the XXXX XXXX and she successfully lived on her own as a single woman while operating her store. The RPD found that it had not been provided with any evidence that would indicate that the Appellant would not be able to engage in similar activities and a similar lifestyle in Yaoundé. [26] The Appellant argues that her uncontested testimony was that going to live in Yaoundé will mean staying in hiding for the rest of her life and the RPD neither evaluated the evidence before it with respect to whether an IFA in Yaoundé is reasonable for the Appellant nor did it show any causal connection between accepting the Appellant's testimony and arriving at a conclusion that her testimony cannot support. [27] I do not agree with the Appellant. For the reasons outlined above I found that the Appellant's uncorroborated subjective fear of persecution was not sufficient to meet her onus to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that she faces more than a mere possibility of persecution in Yaoundé. That same subjective fear does not make Yaoundé an unreasonable IFA in the face of objective evidence from the NDP that a woman can live alone in Yaoundé, especially one like the Appellant who is well educated and has already operated a successful business and lived alone. [28] I find it is objectively reasonable to expect the Appellant to seek safety in a different part of Cameroon, specifically Yaoundé and that she did not meet the very high threshold of demonstrating what makes Yaoundé an unreasonable IFA in all the circumstances. Change in circumstances in Yaoundé since the hearing [29] The Appellant argues that new evidence has emerged since the hearing that highlights the rapidly deteriorating safety and security conditions for English-speaking Cameroonians all over Cameroon in general and in Yaoundé in particular. [30] As detailed above I reviewed all the new evidence and determined that only one referenced the situation in Yaoundé, the article entitled "Cameroon Anglophone Crises: Abuses are not only alarming, but pathetic - Rights Group." The article references a statement from the Mayor of Ndu temporarily located in Yaoundé who alleges that a human rights activist, the "GLOBINET Secretary General, was almost kidnapped when he was seen in Yaoundé.35 While the article may demonstrate that human rights activists are being targeted in Yaoundé it does not identify generally deteriorating safety and security conditions for English-speaking Cameroonians who are not activists. I find that this article has little probative value as evidence of rapidly deteriorating safety and security conditions for English speaking Cameroonians in Yaoundé. [31] Objective evidence in the NDP for Cameroon indicates that the Anglophones make up approximately 20% of the population, that Anglophone rights movements emerged in the early 1990's and that Anglophone activists and Southern Cameroon secessionists have been periodically targeted by the government since that time.36 There is no objective evidence in the NDP to suggest that there are safety and security conditions which would make Yaoundé an objective unreasonable IFA for an Anglophone Cameroonian. CONCLUSION [32] I have reviewed the evidence on the record, the testimony of the Appellant, the RPD's summary of the testimony of her witness, the new evidence and assessed the Appellant's arguments. Following my independent analysis I find that the Appellant has an internal flight alternative in Yaoundé. I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the Appellant being persecuted in Yaoundé and that it would not be objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances for the Appellant to live there. [33] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). (signed) Susan Brown Susan Brown July 26, 2018 Date 1 RPD Record, Exhibit 2, BOC. 2 Appellant's Record, page 203-204, Appellant's Memorandum, paragraphs 8-10. 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, [2016] 4 FCR 157, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII). 4 Ibid., and X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 5 Appellant's Record, pages 28-30. 6 Ibid., pages 31-32. 7 Appellant's Record, pages 33-35. 8 Ibid., pages 36-38. 9 Ibid., pages 39-40. 10 Ibid., page 41. 11 Ibid., page 213, Appellant's Memorandum, paragraph 38. 12 Raza v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 and Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96. 13 Appellant's Record, page 213, Appellant's Memorandum, paragraph 39. 14 Appellant's Record, pages 36-38. 15 Ibid., pages 31-32. 16 Ibid., pages 33-35. 17 Ibid., page 41. 18 Appellant's Record, page 9, Transcript, page 2. 19 Ibid., pages 19-21. 20 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 FC 706 (CA) and Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 FC 589, 163 N.R. 232 (CA). 21 Appellant's Record, page 4, RPD Reasons, page 3 lines 7-34. 22 Ibid., page 21-22, Transcript, page 13-14. 23 Ibid., page 20, Transcript, page 13. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid., page 22, Transcript, page 15. 26 Ibid., page 24, Transcript, page 17. 27 RPD Record, Exhibit 5, pages 170-173, 28 Ibid., pages 174-238, 29 Appellant's Record, page 20, Transcript, page 13. 30 Ibid., page 12, Transcript page 5. 31 Ibid., pages 13-14, Transcript pages 6-7. 32 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 FC 589, 163 N.R. 232 (CA). 33 RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Cameroon, April 29, 2016, document 5.8, Response to Information Request (RIR0 CMR 104129FE, Forced marriages; treatment and protection available to women who try to flee a forced marriage; whether it is possible for a woman to live alone in the country's large cities such as Yaoundé and Doula, updated April 2016. 34 Ibid., page 242. 35 Appellant's Record, pages 36-38. 36 RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Cameroon, April 29, 2016, documents 1.6, 4.9, 4.10. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB7-03986 11 RAD.25.02 (April 24, 2018) Disponible en français