TC0-11199

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-11199 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 May 19, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Karen Wallace Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Kingsley I. Jesuorobo Conseil de la|des 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 (the Appellant) is a citizen of Nigeria. She allegedly fears persecution or harm from her ex-husband's uncle, who forced her to convert from Christianity to Islam. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the Appellant's claim because they determined that the Appellant has a safe and reasonable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Abuja. [3] The Appellant is appealing the RPD decision. She argues that the RPD erred in its IFA analysis by failing to assess the evidence correctly or reasonably. [4] New evidence has been submitted in this appeal. An oral hearing is not requested. [5] The determinative issue in this appeal is whether the RPD erred in its IFA analysis. DECISION [6] I dismiss the appeal. The Appellant has a viable IFA in Abuja. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATIONS [7] The Appellant married her husband in August 2016. She and her husband were Christians at that time. Her husband's uncle converted from Christianity to Islam in November 2016 and joined Boko Haram. In April 2017, he began insisting that the Appellant and her husband convert to Islam. When they refused, he vandalized their home. He continued to threaten them, and they eventually relented and converted to Islam in May 2017. [8] The Appellant came to Canada in XXXX 2018 and claimed refugee protection. She gave birth to her daughter in Canada in May 2018. Her husband remained in Nigeria, and they are now separated. NEW EVIDENCE The evidence presented by the Appellant is rejected [9] According to the law,1 I can only accept evidence that: i. arose after the RPD decision; or ii. was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. that you could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [10] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible, and relevant, before I can accept it.2 [11] The Appellant submitted an affidavit from her cousin and an email from her mother as new evidence in this appeal. The cousin's affidavit states that the Appellant's ex-husband's uncle visited the cousin at her home in Abuja to ask where the Appellant is. The mother's email merely attaches the cousin's affidavit. [12] The affidavit and the email are refused. Although they report on an alleged event that took place after the RPD decision was issued, they are not credible. The suspicious timing of the alleged event is overly fortuitous, and the content of the document appears to be tailormade to address the RPD's finding about the IFA. The Federal Court has determined that it is reasonable for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to consider suspicious timing when assessing the credibility of a document, particularly when it is submitted to directly address the RPD's concerns or findings.3 [13] The RPD asked the Appellant during the hearing if there are any reasons why Abuja would not be a safe and reasonable IFA for the Appellant. The only reason she gave is that her ex-husband's uncle would be able to find her anywhere in Nigeria because he has connections. [14] The Appellant left Nigeria in XXXX 2017. No evidence was presented at the RPD hearing about any attempts by the uncle to contact or find her since that time. The RPD decision was issued on October 2, 2020 and the RPD determined that the Appellant has a safe and reasonable IFA in Abuja. [15] Very coincidently, the Appellant's cousin happened to move to Abuja in XXXX 2020, and the Appellant's ex-husband's uncle appeared at her door unannounced on October 17, 2020. He said he was looking for the Appellant and threatened the cousin to give him information about the Appellant's whereabouts. The cousin convinced him that she knew nothing about the Appellant's whereabouts and he eventually left her home. [16] I have considered that implausibility findings must not be made without sufficient and clear reason to do so. However, the timing of this alleged event is so coincidental and suspicious that it is simply not credible. The uncle made no attempts to find the Appellant or contact her family members for information about her since 2017. Yet, three years later and just two weeks after the RDP decision was issued in October 2020, he coincidently contacted the cousin who just happened to have recently moved to the very city that is the proposed IFA. The incident appears to be tailormade to address the RPD's conclusion about the IFA. [17] The new evidence is not credible. Therefore, it is rejected. ANALYSIS [18] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.4 I have conducted my own independent analysis of the evidence. This included listening to the recording of the RPD hearing and reviewing all the documents submitted. The RPD did not err in its IFA analysis [19] An IFA means that there is another city or area in Nigeria where the Appellant can live safely. If there is an IFA, then the Appellant does not need to seek refuge or safety in Canada. As a result, her claim for refugee protection would be denied. [20] There is a two-part test to determine if there is an IFA. The RPD correctly identified and applied the two-part test. The IFA must be safe, and it must be reasonable. It is safe if there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment or torture. It is reasonable if conditions in the IFA are not unduly harsh and do not jeopardize the life or safety of the Appellant. [21] In determining safety, the agent of persecution's interest in and ability to find the Appellant is considered. The Appellant's circumstances and the general circumstances in the proposed IFAs are also considered. [22] In determining reasonableness, the Appellant's personal situation is considered such as language, religion, ethnicity, education, and ability to earn a living. Establishing unreasonableness requires the existence of conditions in the IFA which would jeopardize the life or safety of the Appellant.5 The Appellant must show actual concrete evidence of such conditions. Her belief that she will be in jeopardy is not sufficient. [23] Once the Board proposes a specific IFA, the onus or burden is on the Appellant to establish that the proposed IFA is not safe and reasonable. The Appellant has not met this burden. [24] The RPD proposed Abuja and Port Harcourt as a potential IFAs at the hearing. Both the RPD Member and the Appellant's counsel questioned the Appellant on this issue. The Appellant stated that the uncle has a house in Port Harcourt so she cannot go there. She also stated that there is no IFA for her because the uncle has contacts that he can use to find her anywhere in Nigeria. [25] For the reasons set out below, I agree with the RPD and find that the Appellant has a safe and reasonable IFA in Abuja. She has not met the burden of establishing that Abuja is unsafe or unreasonable. Insufficient evidence of the means of the agent of persecution [26] At the RPD hearing, the Appellant stated that the agent of persecution is her ex-husband's uncle who has connections throughout Nigeria due to his recent ties with the Boko Haram, which will enable him to find her anywhere in Nigeria. When she was asked about these connections, she said that she does not know who the alleged connections are and does not know anything about them. None of the alleged connections have ever had any contact with her.6 [27] The Appellant's evidence about the uncle's alleged connections is vague and speculative. I acknowledge the Appellant's argument that her sworn testimony must be presumed to be true and I accept that she may believe the uncle has connections. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish the uncle actually has connections. The Appellant herself is unaware who the connections are, or what influence or power they may have to enable them to locate her in the capital city of Abuja, which has a population of millions of people. [28] The proposed IFA of Abuja is a large urban centre that is located hundreds of kilometres away from the city of Lagos where the Appellant used to live. I acknowledge the Appellant's argument that the mere size of the city does not guarantee that the uncle could not find her there. Yet, the larger the city is, the more anonymity the Appellant would have, as opposed to a small town. This makes finding her less likely. On a balance of probabilities, the agent of persecution lacks the means to locate the Appellant in Abuja. Insufficient evidence of the motive of the agent of persecution [29] Even if the uncle did have the means to locate the Appellant in Abuja, there is insufficient evidence of any ongoing interest in the Appellant or a motive to do so. [30] The Appellant stated that the uncle himself converted to Islam and joined Boko Haram in 2016. He then was on a mission to convert Christians to Islam, including every member of his extended family. He harassed and threatened the Appellant and her husband to convert for about one month, until they finally relented and converted to Islam in May 2017. [31] The uncle's mission was successful. Since the Appellant already converted to Islam, it is not clear what current or future interest the uncle has in the Appellant, or what motive he would have to locate her if she returned to Nigeria, especially considering that she is now separated from her husband and will have less ties to his family. [32] The Appellant's Basis of Claim states that she practiced Islam after she converted. In July 2017, her parents came to visit her and insisted that she convert back to Christianity or she would be rejected by the family. Feeling torn between two families and two religions, she then decided to leave Nigeria and come to Canada.7 The Basis of Claim does not provide information about any reason the uncle would have for an ongoing or future interest in the Appellant. Neither does her testimony at the RPD hearing. [33] After the Appellant came to Canada, she and her husband separated. The Appellant's ex-husband is a similarly situated person. He remained in Nigeria after the Appellant left. There is no evidence that there has been any further harm or threats to him from the uncle. The Appellant's mother-in-law's affidavit from September 2019 8 does not mention any harm or threats to her son after May 2017. [34] The Appellant ex-husband's extended family members are also similarly situated persons. The uncle threatened all of them to convert and they allegedly did so. There is no evidence of any further threat or harm to any of them. [35] The first part of the IFA test has been met. The proposed IFA of Abuja is safe since the Appellant has not established that there is a serious possibility of persecution, or risk to life, or cruel and unusual punishment or torture. The reasonableness of the proposed IFA's [36] The RPD determined that Abuja is a reasonable IFA. The Appellant argues that Abuja is not reasonable because single women face considerable challenges in Nigeria, and citizens who are not indigenous to a region or city face ethnic discrimination. The location of the IFA is not a barrier to relocating [37] No evidence of any hardship due to an inability to travel to the proposed IFA was presented. Abuja is the capital of Nigeria and a major urban center. It is serviced by major roads and transportation services, including an airport. It is easily and safely accessible. Language and religion are not barriers to relocating [38] The RPD found that there are no unreasonable language barriers in Abuja. I agree with the RPD that any language challenges the Appellant could face do not rise to the level of making the IFA unreasonable or unduly harsh. [39] The Basis of Claim states that the Appellant speaks Yoruba and English.9 The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria establishes that English is the official language in Nigeria. Yoruba is widely spoken in large urban centers and in the southern two thirds of Nigeria where the proposed IFA is located.10 As a result, there is no unduly harsh language barrier facing the Appellant in the IFA. [40] The Appellant has not argued that she will face any religious barriers to relocating within Nigeria. She was born and raised as a Christian.11 She converted to Islam in 2017. The Nigerian population is almost equally divided between Christians and Muslims.12 Therefore, whether she now identifies as a Christian or a Muslim, the Appellant would not be a religious minority in Abuja. Ethnicity is not a barrier to relocating [41] At the RPD hearing, the Appellant did not argue that she will face any ethnicity barriers or discrimination by relocating to Abuja. In this appeal she is now arguing that she will be discriminated against because she is not indigenous to Abuja. [42] I accept that indigeneship can be a barrier to relocating within Nigeria. However, that is very much influenced by which region or city a person is relocating to. [43] The NDP reports that indigeneship can result in discrimination and affect access to land ownership, government jobs and services, political positions, and university admissions. It can be a barrier to relocating, especially if a person is moving between northern and the southern states. Citizens who relocate to another part of Nigeria, where their ethnic group is a minority, can be considered and treated as an outsider.13 [44] Yet, the Appellant will not be an ethnic minority in Abuja. Nigeria has hundreds of ethnic groups. The Appellant is Yoruba, which is in the top three ethnic groups in terms of size.14 The Yoruba live predominately in the Southwest of Nigeria, which is near the border of the Federal Capital Territory and capital city of Abuja. [45] The capital of Abuja has a population of over 3 million and has a wide mix of ethnic groups. Internal migration within Nigeria is very common and the large cities have large migrant communities.15 [46] Internal migration in Nigeria is the norm, often for economic reasons. Anywhere from 10 to 45% of the population of every state in Nigeria is made up of migrants. Issues of indigeneity are reported to be almost nonexistent in large cities such as Lagos and Abuja, which have very large migrant populations and where non-indigenous people are demographically dominant.16 [47] Abuja became Nigeria's capital in 1991. It is a relatively new city with a very ethnically diverse population. Unlike some smaller cities or rural areas, individuals are not required to prove their state of origin or indigeneity before they can access public services in Abuja.17 [48] The fact that the Appellant is not indigenous to Abuja does not make relocating there unreasonable or unduly harsh considering it is a large urban center where migration is very common and there is great ethnic diversity. The objective documentation in the NDP supports a finding that indigeneity is unlikely to be an issue in Abuja. Education and employment considerations [49] At the RPD hearing, the Appellant did not argue that she will face any housing or employment barriers in Abuja. [50] The Appellant is well-educated for a woman in Nigeria, most of whom average only eight years of formal education.18 She has more than double that number, including two university degrees. She has a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Appellant worked as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Nigeria for over a decade19 and often travelled internationally to many countries for her job.20 [51] This level of education and work experience makes the Appellant reasonably employable, especially in a large urban centre such as Abuja. [52] I recognize that the unemployment rate is high in Nigeria. This is a condition that most citizens in Nigeria have to cope with. The Appellant has not provided evidence about how the high unemployment rate in Nigeria would make the proposed IFA unreasonable; especially given that the Appellant was able to secure work in her field for many years before she left Nigeria. [53] The fact that the Appellant might be physically and economically better off in Canada than in a safe place in her own country is not a factor to consider in assessing the reasonableness of an IFA.21 Challenges living as a single woman in Nigeria [54] At the RPD hearing, the Appellant did not raise concerns with living on her own in Nigeria as a separated woman with a child. However, in this appeal she quotes a portion of a document22 in the NDP that identifies difficulties facing women heads of households, including difficulties finding suitable housing and employment. These challenges can be influenced or lessened by factors such as education, skills and work experience, economic status, and a support system. Other than quoting a portion of the document, the Appellant does not provide any detail or specific argument about any undue hardship she could experience in her particular circumstances. [55] The Appellant is an independent professional. Her Basis of Claim states that she is an educated person who has "always worked and earned a living independently without any opposition".23 When she was questioned at the RPD hearing, she did not mention any concerns about finding employment or housing on her own. [56] The Appellant has relocated within Nigeria in the past. She attended university for four years in another state to obtain her bachelor's degree. She then moved back to Lagos to obtain her master's degree.24 [57] The Appellant has lived most of her life outside of a marriage. She is currently 34 years old. She got married in August 2016 at the age of twenty-nine. She left Nigeria as well as her husband in XXXX 2017. She has lived as a married woman for only a little over one year of her life. She did not provide any evidence of any prior hardships she faced while living as a single woman in Nigeria. [58] I recognize that the Appellant did not have a child when she was living in Nigeria. She had a child after she arrived in Canada. The child is a Canadian citizen and is not part of, or subject to this appeal. However, regarding the Appellant, she would be living as a single parent if she returns to Nigeria and this can pose additional challenges for any parent. I note that the Appellant's mother's affidavit25 says the mother is a single parent who raised all her children to be good law-abiding citizens. Given her mother's experience, the Appellant is not unfamiliar with living in a female headed household. That environment did not prevent her from becoming an educated and successful professional. There is insufficient evidence that living as a single parent would cause undue hardship to the Appellant. [59] Considering the Appellant's particular circumstances and experience, on a balance of probabilities, she would not face any unreasonable employment or housing barriers or face other discrimination as a single woman that would amount to undue hardship. The XXXX report [60] An April 2019 XXXX assessment report 26 states that the Appellant presents with symptoms XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and is at risk if she were to be returned to "...the environment she associates with significant emotional pain and threat of physical harm or harassment".27 [61] I note that the report states that it is subject to limitations since the XXXX did not have access to any prior medical or XXXX records for the Appellant and only met with the Appellant once. Nevertheless, I accept the conclusion that the Appellant presented symptoms of XXXX XXXX XXXX. [62] There was no evidence presented that the Appellant was receiving or planned to receive any XXXX XXXX XXXX for her symptoms. The RPD found that there was insufficient evidence that the Appellant would not be able to find XXXX XXXX care in Abuja if needed. I agree with that finding. The Appellant has not raised any error or issue with this finding on appeal. [63] The Appellant argues that the RPD incorrectly assessed the XXXX report when it concluded that the report does not speak to the unreasonableness of relocating to the IFA. The report states that the Appellant is at risk if she were to be returned to the environment she associates with emotional pain and threats. The RPD found that Abuja is a different environment. However, the Appellant argues that she considers the environment to be all of Nigeria. [64] I accept that the Appellant would find it upsetting if she returned to Nigeria when she no longer wants to live there or have any contact with her ex-husband's uncle. However, I do not accept that it is reasonable to consider the entire country of Nigeria as the environment associated with harm. [65] It is understandable that a person would want to avoid a particular location where they experienced threats or harm due to the potential traumatic associations with that location. The Appellant would understandably want to avoid the town and location where the uncle lives, where the family meeting about conversion took place, or the mosque where the conversion ceremony occurred. However, it is not reasonable to consider a completely different and unrelated city hundreds of kilometers away, such as Abuja where no traumatic events took place, to be part of that same location or environment. [66] There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that simply returning to the country of Nigeria, or having to live anywhere in the entire country, would psychologically or emotionally amount to undue hardship. Other factors considered [67] There is a high threshold that must be met to show that an IFA is unreasonable. Hardship associated with relocating or being separated from family members is not sufficient. The Appellant's preferences about where to live are not relevant. Neither is inconvenience or a reduction in status or quality of life.28 The Appellant has not met the high threshold to establish that the IFA is unreasonable. [68] The second part of the IFA test has been met. The Appellant has not established that living in the proposed IFA will be unreasonable to the extent that it would be unduly harsh to live there, or that the Appellant's life or safety will be in jeopardy. CONCLUSION [69] 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) Karen Wallace Karen Wallace May 19, 2021 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, subsection 110(4). 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raza 2007 FC 385. 3 Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 877, at para 10; and Tuncdemir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 993, at para 37. 4 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 5 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164. 6 RPD Hearing Recording (September 16, 2020) at 0:11:40. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, p. 25. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 131. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, p. 12. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (July 31, 2020), item 1.4, European Union. European Asylum Support Office, June 2017. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, p. 12. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (July 31, 2020), item 1.4, June 2017. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (July 31, 2020), item 13.1, Response to Information Request (RIR), NGA106361.E, Immigration Refugee Board (IRB), October 30, 2019. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (July 31, 2020), item 1.4, June 2017. 15 Ibid. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (July 31, 2020), item 13.1, October 30, 2019. 17 Ibid. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (July 31, 2020), item 1.6, United States. Central Intelligence Agency, November 22, 2019. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 40. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 40. 21 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (July 31, 2020), item 5.9, RIR, NGA106362.E, IRB, November 20, 2019. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, p. 25. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, p. 21. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 132. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 137-146. 27 Ibid, p. 146. 28 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164.; and Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-11199 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