TB7-11815

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 : TB7-11815 TB7-11816 TB7-11817 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered at Toronto, ON Appel instruit à Date of decision March 15, 2018 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Johnson Babalola Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX ("the principal Appellant") and her children, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ("the minor Appellants"), collectively referred to as "the Appellants", appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying their claims for refugee protection. The principal Appellant is the designated representative for the minor Appellants. [2] The Appellants indicate that they are relying on new documentary evidence referred to in subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and request an oral hearing pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA if the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) deems it necessary. They ask the RAD to find them to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. In the alternative, they ask that the matter be referred back to a different member of the RPD for a redetermination. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [3] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. Background [4] The Appellants alleged before the RPD that they are the wife and children of a Colonel in the Nigerian Army who is involved in activities against Boko Haram. They alleged that, because of his activities and because they are Christians, upon return to Nigeria, they will be harmed or killed by members of Boko Haram. [5] The Appellants' claims for refugee protection were heard on May 4, 2017. By a decision of May 24, 2017, the RPD rejected the claims finding that adequate state protection at the operational level would be available to the Appellants if they were to return to Nigeria. It also found that the Appellants had not provided sufficient clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection. [6] On appeal, the Appellants submit that the RPD erred in its state protection analysis. [7] For the reasons that follow, I find that the RPD did not err in its state protection analysis or findings. ROLE OF THE RAD [8] As held by the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica,1 the RAD is to review decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness on questions of law, fact, and mixed fact and law, after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it. The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in the assessment and weighing of oral testimony heard, which, in particular cases, may attract a standard of review of reasonableness.2 Unless otherwise stated, a correctness standard has been applied. ANALYSIS Admissibility of Evidence Submitted on Appeal [9] The Appellants tendered the following documents as proposed new evidence in support of their appeal. (a) Expert opinion of XXXX XXXX;3 (b) Legal opinion of XXXX XXXX with attachments;4 (c) Letter from the principal Appellant's husband with attachments;5 and (d) News articles regarding the presence of Boko Haram in Lagos and the killings of military officers by Boko Haram.6 [10] The Appellants submit that the RAD accept items (a), (b), (c), and (d) pursuant to the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Raza.7 They point out that the four factors that need to be considered with respect to new evidence, as per Raza, are credibility, materiality, newness and relevance. They submit that their new documents meet the criteria. [11] I note that subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the Appellants may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claims or that was not reasonably available, or that they could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. It is for the Appellants to make full and detailed submissions in their Memorandum of Argument about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) and how that evidence relates to them.8 Where a document meets the test in subsection 110(4), the RAD may conduct a further assessment of that evidence. In Singh,9 the Federal Court of Appeal held that there is no valid reason that the RAD cannot apply the criteria set out in Raza10 to the assessment of new evidence. [12] For these reasons, I must first consider whether the proposed new evidence passes the test in subsection 110(4). If not, I have no discretion to admit the evidence. Only if the proposed new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4), may I apply the criteria set out in Raza to the assessment of that evidence. [13] In my view, items (a), (b) and (d) noted above do not meet the statutory requirements of subsection 110(4) for the following reasons. Item (a) - Expert opinion of XXXX XXXX [14] The Appellants maintain that, pursuant to the expert opinion of XXXX XXXX, there will be no protection for them in Lagos. They maintain that the information in the document is new, and they did not envisage that the RPD would have issues with the presence of Boko Haram in Lagos, since they had provided a number of documents in support of their claims. They argue that there were documents in the National Documentation Package (NDP) that they had thought would be adequate to convince the RPD of the presence of Boko Haram in Lagos and the lack of protection for them in Nigeria. They indicate that they therefore obtained the new document to support their appeal. They also indicate that the information in the document is relevant and material, and emanates from a credible source. [15] In my view, subsection 110(4) does not provide an opportunity for appellants to complete a deficient record submitted to the RPD; rather, it allows for the correction of errors of fact, errors in law, or errors of mixed fact and law.11 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 they known about the deficiency, they could have presented better evidence that was always in existence or they could have had witness testimony before the RPD from persons that could have been called to support their claim.12 [16] State protection was raised as an issue at the Appellants' hearing. Considering that the Appellants had provided the RPD with documentation regarding state protection in Nigeria, including state protection for those at risk of harm by members of Boko Haram, I conclude that the Appellants were anticipating state protection to be a significant issue in their claims. Therefore, they could reasonably have been expected to provide the RPD with sufficient documentation to support their claims and to rebut the presumption of state protection in Nigeria. [17] I note that while the "expert opinion" letter from XXXX XXXX is dated after the rejection of the Appellants' claims, the information in the letter predates the rejection. For example, XXXX XXXX refers to a number of news articles dated between 2012 and 2016 to support his opinion.13 There is no indication that any of the information XXXX XXXX provides, or refers to in his letter, arose after the rejection of the Appellants' claims. Also, the Appellants fail to establish that the letter from XXXX XXXXwas not reasonably available prior to the rejection of their claims. Item (b) - Legal opinion of XXXX XXXX with attachments [18] The Appellants point out that the legal opinion of XXXX XXXX speaks to the lack of protection for them in Lagos. They make the same argument regarding the admissibility of item (b) as they make for item (a). [19] Information in the legal opinion letter of XXXX XXXX predates the rejection of the Appellants' claims. For instance, XXXX XXXX refers to Boko Haram's activities in the late 2000s14 and in 201415 to support his opinion. There is no indication that any of the information he provides, or refers to, in his letter, arose after the rejection of the Appellants' claims. Also, as with item (a), the Appellants fail to establish that the letter was not reasonably available prior to the rejection of their claims. Item (c) - Letter from the principal Appellant's husband with attachments [20] It is pointed out that the letter from the principal Appellant's husband speaks to recent developments: updates regarding the report he had previously made to the military to offer protection to his family. The Appellants make the same argument regarding the admissibility of item (c) as they make for item (a). [21] In his letter, the principal Appellant's husband indicates that he had been making efforts to know the outcome of the long-running investigation regarding the threatening letter that was dropped off at his apartment. He also indicates that he was informed on July 19, 2017 that security cannot be provided to his family or any other family seeking such security. The letter meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) since it indicates that the author was informed of something after the rejection of the Appellants' claims. A further assessment of this evidence is found below. Item (d) - News articles regarding the presence of Boko Haram in Lagos and the killings of military officers by Boko Haram [22] The Appellants point out that the news articles in item (d) speak to the presence of Boko Haram in Lagos and the deaths of some military officers at the hands of Boko Haram. They make the same argument regarding the admissibility of item (d) as they make for item (a). [23] Six of the seven news articles contained in item (d) are dated 2016 and one is dated 2014. They were all published prior to the rejection of the Appellants' claims for refugee protection. They also all pertain to issues related to the Appellants' claims, including the issue of state protection. The Appellants could reasonably have been expected to have presented the articles to the RPD prior to the rejection of their claims. Summary of the Admissibility of Evidence Submitted on Appeal [24] The Appellants have failed to establish that the evidence contained in items (a), (b) and (d) arose after the rejection of their claims, or that it was not reasonably available at the time of the rejection, or that they could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented at the time of the rejection. Since they do not meet the statutory requirements of subsection 110(4), items (a), (b) and (d) will not be accepted as new evidence in this appeal. Item (c) meets the test for new evidence and is assessed below. FINDINGS OF THE RPD State Protection Boko Haram [25] The RPD noted that, while there is documentary evidence indicating that Boko Haram poses a risk in Northeast Nigeria, an area where it exerts control, there is little evidence of Boko Haram activity in South Nigeria, including the area of Lagos. It noted documentary evidence indicating that Boko Haram is almost entirely inactive in Lagos and had carried out only a single operation in Lagos consisting of an attack on a fuel depot in June 2014. The RPD noted that a reading of news articles regarding the arrest of six Boko Haram members in Lagos in July 2016 suggested that they were fleeing from state agents in the Northeast and not engaged in carrying out further attacks in Lagos. The RPD noted evidence in the NDP indicating that Boko Haram's lack of reach in the southern parts of Nigeria is due in part to the South being predominantly Christian and also because the predominant ethnic group in Lagos is Yoruba, making ethnic groups from the North more visible. The RPD found that there is insufficient objective evidence to establish that Boko Haram is active in any significant way in Lagos. [26] The Appellants maintain that the RPD erred in its conclusion due to its selective use of documentary evidence. They maintain that the RPD ignored documents that not only speak about the presence of Boko Haram in Lagos but confirming that the group has been active in Lagos. They point to a report indicating that the group has launched occasional attacks in the states of Bauchi, Kano, Kaduna, and Taraba, and in Abuja and Lagos. The Appellants submit that the RPD failed to take this evidence into consideration, which was important in its state protection in Lagos analysis. [27] In my view, the Appellant's argument fails for the following reasons. The RPD is presumed to have considered all of the evidence before it, and there is no requirement for the panel to refer to each document in the record.16 Furthermore, the RPD did consider evidence regarding Boko Haram's presence in Lagos and the occasional attacks. It noted the occasional attack such as the one on a fuel depot in Lagos in June 2014 and the arrest of six Boko Haram members in Lagos in July 2016. [28] The RPD was not wrong to find that there is insufficient objective evidence to establish that Boko Haram is active in any significant way in Lagos. I note, as the RPD did, the lack of evidence regarding Boko Haram activities in Lagos. Documentary evidence indicates that there are no known targeted attacks by Boko Haram on individuals in the South, and there have been very few attacks in general by Boko Haram south of the Middle Belt states. Also indicated is that Boko Haram's capacity in the South is limited, and there seldom seems to be activity south of Abuja. The evidence indicates that Boko Haram is almost entirely inactive in Lagos.17 This evidence demonstrates that Nigeria has mechanisms in place to curb Boko Haram's activities and eradicate the organization, and the mechanisms have been highly successful, especially in South Nigeria. The fact that there are no known targeted attacks by Boko Haram on individuals in the South demonstrates that state protection for citizens of Nigeria, including potential victims of Boko Haram, in the South has been very effective. [29] Evidence of the arrest of suspected Boko Haram members in Lagos also demonstrates the effectiveness of state protection against the threat posed by Boko Haram in Nigeria. One news article indicates that six suspected Boko Haram members were arrested in three different locations in Lagos. Also indicated in the article is that the suspected Boko Haram members were said to have fled from North-East Nigeria following the increased military operations to flush out Boko Haram members.18 Another article indicates that over 30 persons had been arrested in an ongoing investigation of suspected Boko Haram collaborators and saboteurs in the fight against terrorism and insurgency.19 Yet another article indicates that the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF) arrested three members of Boko Haram in Lagos.20 This is further evidence demonstrating the success and effectiveness of Nigeria's efforts to curb Boko Haram's activities and eradicate the organization. In my view, this reinforces the presumption of state protection in Nigeria. Appellants' profiles [30] The RPD noted that the Appellants are the wife and children of a colonel in the Nigerian Army who was posted to India in 2014. It noted that the Appellants accompanied him and were residing in India until they last entered Canada and made claims for refugee protection. The RPD noted that, prior to the family moving to India, the Appellants were residing in military barracks in Lagos, Nigeria. It noted the principal Appellant's testimony that her husband had been involved in intelligence work that resulted in the arrest of several Boko Haram members, and her profile as a Christian and as the wife of a military officer makes her a particular target of Boko Haram. The RPD noted the principal Appellant's testimony that, on September 29, 2016, her friend told her that Boko Haram was looking for her, and a threatening letter was left at her residence in the barracks. The RPD noted documentary evidence indicating that Boko Haram targets Christians and senior military and police officers; however, there is no objective documentary evidence to demonstrate that Boko Haram regularly targets individuals residing in Lagos. [31] The RPD found that, as the family of a military officer, the Appellants would be more likely to have access to the mechanisms of state protection than an average citizen. It noted that when the principal Appellant's husband reported the threatening letter to the military police, he was told that they would look into the matter and get back to him. The RPD found that the principal Appellant's testimony showed that she had been able to access state protection. [32] In my view, the RPD was not wrong to find that, as the family of a military officer, the Appellants would be more likely to have access to the mechanisms of state protection than an average citizen in Nigeria. The principal Appellant's husband is a colonel in the Nigerian Armed Forces. The Appellants indicate in their Basis of Claim (BoC) Form narrative that the principal Appellant knew that her husband was active in gathering evidence about members and leaders of Boko Haram and that he had even been responsible for some of the arrests as part of his military intelligence. Also indicated is that the military and police have been working together since 2014 to infiltrate Boko Haram, and many members have been killed in raids or arrested.21 One would expect a high ranking officer in the Nigerian Armed Forces, who has worked together with the police to combat Boko Haram, to have higher access to state protection for himself and his family than the average citizen in Nigeria. This evidence speaks for itself. A colonel's influence in the armed forces is substantial based on rank. The Appellants' immediate family member is a high ranking officer of a security force that has worked with police to eradicate Boko Haram and the evidence shows that they have been successful. It would stand that the Appellants would benefit from this familial relationship. Nigeria's actions to combat Boko Haram [33] The RPD noted documentary evidence indicating that the government and security forces are taking action at the operational level against members of Boko Haram. It noted that members of Boko Haram have been intercepted prior to taking action; there have been arrests of suspected Boko Haram members in Lagos and other areas of the South, and individuals in the security forces suspected of providing information to Boko Haram have been arrested. The RPD acknowledged the shortcomings and problems within Nigeria's security forces. It found that, while the police and security forces may be unable or unwilling to provide protection in some circumstances, the government and security forces are taking effective action to counter the threat of Boko Haram. [34] The Appellants argue that the RPD relied on state efforts rather than the capacity of the state to combat Boko Haram and to protect them. [35] Considering the fact that there have been almost no attacks by Boko Haram in Lagos, and there are no known targeted attacks by Boko Haram on individuals in the South demonstrates that the state has been very effective in providing protection to all its citizens, especially those in the South, from Boko Haram's violence. In my view, the RPD was not wrong to find that the government and security forces in Nigeria are taking effective action to counter the threat of Boko Haram. Appellants' efforts to access state protection [36] The RPD noted the Appellants' evidence that a friend reported the threatening note left at their residence to the civilian police in Lagos, but the officer was not interested in helping, and his response implied that Boko Haram had sympathisers throughout the police. It noted that the friend did not follow up with police or make any other attempt to report the threat. The RPD noted documentary evidence indicating that the authorities in Lagos take action against Boko Haram members. It noted that, despite her husband being involved in intelligence gathering that resulted in the arrest of Boko Haram members, the principal Appellant made no further efforts to contact any police or security agencies. Given her profile as the wife of a military officer, the RPD found it unreasonable for the principal Appellant to make no effort to seek state protection herself and instead rely on a friend to file a police report. [37] It was also noted by the RPD that the Appellants had access to the military police in Nigeria, and after the principal Appellant found out about the threatening note, she called her husband, and he contacted the military police from India. It noted the principal Appellant's testimony that her husband was told that they would look into the matter and get back to him. The RPD noted that the principal Appellant did not take any steps herself or follow up with the civilian or military police herself. It noted the principal Appellant's explanation for failing to do so was because she believed that Boko Haram members had infiltrated the police and military, and therefore there would be no protection available for her anywhere if she were to return to Nigeria. The RPD found that the principal Appellant made minimal effort to seek state protection and had not provided a reasonable explanation for her failure to further engage the mechanisms of state protection. [38] The RPD found that the Appellants had not provided sufficient clear and convincing evidence of Nigeria's inability to protect them from the threat posed by Boko Haram. It found that adequate state protection at the operational level would be available to the Appellants. [39] The Appellants submit that the RPD ignored the fact that they were not in Nigeria at the time the threat was delivered to their home. They also submit that the RPD failed to state what other efforts were expected from the principal Appellant. They maintain that the RPD engaged in speculations to arrive at the conclusion that they could have done more. They also argue that the RPD did not put this concern to them at the hearing, and it is a breach of procedural fairness not to confront a claimant with concerns and then use same to question some issues about them. They maintain that the RPD did not ask them about the other efforts they could have made to seek state protection and why they did not seek them. [40] The Appellants also submit that the RPD erred by stating that the principal Appellant's husband had contacted the military police on their behalf. They maintain that it is their evidence that the principal Appellant's husband contacted the military and not the military police. They submit that the military are not saddled with the responsibility of providing protection to civilians. They maintain that this is the responsibility of the Nigeria Police and documentary evidence speaks to the fact that they are not in a position to protect Nigerian citizens from killings by Boko Haram. They submit that they had made efforts to contact the police through their friend and neighbour, and the police did not offer any assistance. [41] The Appellants submit that the RPD ignored most of the supporting documents they provided to support their claims, especially the affidavits of the mother of the principal Appellant and the neighbour. They maintain that these documents corroborate their claim that the state will not be able to protect them. Efforts [42] The Appellants' argument is without merit. Even though the Appellants were not in Nigeria at the time the threatening note was left at their residence in Nigeria, they were expected to return to Nigeria in August 2017. The principal Appellant indicated at the hearing that her husband's posting in India was to end in August 2017 at which point he would return to their residence in the military barracks in Lagos, Nigeria. If the principal Appellant's husband was to return to Lagos, Nigeria in August 2017, it can be concluded that the Appellants would have been expected to return to Lagos, Nigeria with him if they had not remained in Canada and claimed refugee protection. [43] At the hearing, the RPD questioned the principal Appellant regarding her efforts to report the threatening letter to police. The principal Appellant indicated that her former neighbour who had found the letter had reported the threatening letter to the civil police in Victoria Island before she spoke with him. When asked if the neighbour had followed up with police, the principal Appellant indicated that she had not. The following excerpt from the hearing demonstrates this. RPD: What did your neighbour do when he found the letter? Principal Appellant: When I called him and told him to go to police, he said he had done that already. RPD: What did he say police did? Principal Appellant: He said the police officer he met was not interested in helping. He said that Boko Haram has a lot of sympathisers, and that's how they got into my barracks. RPD: Do you know if Boko Haram knew that you were not in Nigeria? Principal Appellant: I'm not sure. I don't know. RPD: So are you saying that someone affiliated with Boko Haram was able to gain access to the barracks in order to leave you a note? Principal Appellant: Yes. RPD: Did your friend ever try to speak to anyone else in the police or file a complaint? Principal Appellant: No, he said he was scared because of the response from police because he was told to be careful so he didn't make a report. RPD: After you found out about this threat, what did you do? Principal Appellant: I called my husband.22 [44] The principal Appellant's evidence is clear that she made no effort to report the threatening letter to police in Nigeria herself. Her neighbour had indicated that he had attempted to report it to police, but the police dismissed his complaint, and he did not complain or follow up. Given the seriousness of the threat and her profile as the wife of a high ranking military officer, the RPD was not wrong to find it unreasonable for the principal Appellant to make no effort to report the threatening letter to police in Nigeria, even if she was in Canada at the time. Military Police [45] While the Appellants maintain that it is their evidence that the principal Appellant's husband contacted the military and not the military police, the audio recording of the RPD hearing reveals otherwise. The following is an excerpt from the hearing. RPD: When your husband was back in Nigeria, did he go to police? Principal Appellant: No. He reported to military police. RPD: When your neighbour went to police, which police did he go to? Principal Appellant: VI - Victoria Island civil police station. RPD: So your husband was aware that someone broke into your residence in the military compound. Why would he not report that to military police? Principal Appellant: He reported. That's my husband. RPD: Your husband reported to military police? Principal Appellant: Yes, he called them from India. RPD: When did he call them? Principal Appellant: After I found out. RPD: So sometime after September 29? Principal Appellant: Yes. RPD: Do you know approximately how long after? Principal Appellant: I think sometime in the first week of October. RPD: What was the response of the military police? Principal Appellant: They would look into it. They would look into the matter. That's all they said. RPD: Do you have any reports from the military police? Principal Appellant: I don't know. RPD: Your husband provided an affidavit in exhibit 11 at page 105.23 I looked in the affidavit. It does not say anything about reporting to military police. Principal Appellant: He told me he has to be careful because of the kind of work he is doing. RPD: Do you know if he has followed up with police? Principal Appellant: Yes, that they would get back. That they would look into the issue. RPD: Do you have any reason to believe that Boko Haram has infiltrated the military police in Lagos? Principal Appellant: I think so. RPD: Why? Principal Appellant: Because they've been able to get into the police, the army. RPD: Has your husband told you anything about infiltration of Boko Haram? Principal Appellant: We heard on the news. RPD: You heard on the news. Principal Appellant: Yes, because they don't know if they have members in the military.24 [46] It is clear that the principal Appellant indicated that her husband contacted the military police in Nigeria to report the threatening letter left at his residence in Lagos. [47] Considering that the principal Appellant's husband is a high ranking military officer and he reported the threatening letter to military police in Nigeria, and considering the success Nigeria has had in keeping Boko Haram out of South Nigeria, one would expect that the military police investigated the incident involving the threatening letter. Considering the seriousness of the threat, one would expect the principal Appellant and her husband to have followed up with police in Nigeria, especially since they were scheduled to return to Nigeria in August 2017. However, the Appellants provided little evidence to suggest that a significant effort was made to follow up on the reports to the authorities or to seek protection from the threat. Affidavits [48] With respect to the affidavits of the mother of the principal Appellant and the neighbour,25 in my view, the overwhelming objective documentary evidence in the record regarding state protection from Boko Haram in Lagos outweighs the opinions of two individuals with no known expertise in the assessment of state protection. As noted above, the evidence demonstrates that state protection for citizens of Nigeria, including potential victims of Boko Haram, in the South has been very effective. I give very little weight to the affidavits in terms of its ability to undermine the effectiveness of state protection against Boko Haram in Nigeria or in undermining the presumption of state protection in Nigeria. New evidence - Letter from the principal Appellant's husband with attachments [49] As noted above, the principal Appellant's husband ("XXXX XXXX") in his letter indicates that he had been making efforts to know the outcome of the long-running investigation regarding the threatening letter that was dropped off at his apartment. He also indicates that the investigation is still inconclusive, and he was informed on July 19, 2017 that security cannot be provided to his family or any other family seeking such security. [50] In consideration of this new evidence, I note the following. In a sworn affidavit of consent dated November 18, 2016, XXXX XXXX authorized and gave permission to the principal Appellant to live in Canada with the minor Appellants.26 In an affidavit sworn on December 2, 2016, XXXX XXXX indicated, among other things, that a message threatening the principal and minor Appellants was left at his house in Lagos in September 2016, and police were not able to provide security.27 At the RPD hearing, the principal Appellant indicated that, after finding out about the note left at her residence in Lagos from her friend, she called her husband, and he contacted the military police from India. When asked what the response of the military police was, the principal Appellant said that her husband was told that they would look into the matter and get back to him. When asked if there had been any follow-up, the principal Appellant indicated that the follow-up was that the military police told her husband that they would look into the matter and get back to him. [51] In my view, if the threatening letter was left at the Appellants' residence in Lagos in September 2016 and reported to the military police in or about the first week of October 2016, XXXX XXXX had eight months to find out about the investigation, if the threat was real, and if the authorities would provide protection to him and his family, if the threat was real. XXXX XXXX is a high ranking military officer. One would expect him to receive immediate attention regarding his report of the threatening letter. It is simply not credible that he had to wait until the Appellants' claims were rejected to hear from the authorities that the investigation was inconclusive and that security could not be provided to his family. [52] Even if XXXX XXXX was informed that the investigation into the threat was inconclusive and security cannot be provided to his family or any other family seeking such security, documentary evidence demonstrates that state protection against Boko Haram has been highly effective in South Nigeria, especially in Lagos. As noted above, there are no known targeted attacks by Boko Haram on individuals in the South. [53] Further, the security that XXXX XXXX suggests cannot be provided is a protective team assigned to protect the personal security of his family members. He indicates in his letter that, due to the current situation in Nigeria, the provision of a personal security detail to his family or anyone else was not feasible. Adequate and effective state protection does not mean that the state has to provide a personal security detail to an individual who has received a threat or who is at risk of harm. The effectiveness of state protection is demonstrated by measures the state has in place to provide protection to its citizens and if those measures have proved to be successful. The preponderance of the documentary evidence, some of which is noted above, indicates that Nigeria has been successful in its measures to combat Boko Haram in South Nigeria, especially in Lagos. For these reasons, I give the letter little weight in terms of its ability to undermine the effectiveness of state protection against Boko Haram in Nigeria or in undermining the presumption of state protection in Nigeria. [54] The letter is insufficient evidence of the Appellants' contention that adequate state protection is not available to them in Nigeria. It certainly does not justify allowing the Appellants' claims for refugee protection. Minor Appellants [55] The Appellants submit that the RPD failed to consider the claims of the minor Appellants individually even though the principal Appellant presented evidence that the minor Appellants face death at the hands of Boko Haram members too in Nigeria. They maintain that the RPD's decision should not stand due to the lack of an independent analysis of state protection for the minor Appellants. [56] This argument is without merit. The RPD found that adequate state protection at the operational level was available for all the Appellants in Lagos, Nigeria considering all of their circumstances. No credible evidence was presented to distinguish the minor Appellants' circumstances from those of the principal Appellant. Application for an Oral Hearing [57] The Appellants request an oral hearing, pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA, if the RAD deems it necessary. [58] When read together, subsections 110(3), (4), and (6) establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this unless there is new evidence, in which case the RAD may hold a hearing if that new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellants, is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claims. [59] The letter from the principal Appellant's husband has been accepted as new evidence in this appeal. However, for the reasons noted above, it does not justify allowing the Appellants' claims for refugee protection. Therefore, a hearing is not warranted, and the Appellants' request for an oral hearing is denied. Disposition [60] The Appellants have alleged that the RPD erred in its state protection analysis. Based on my own analysis of the record, I find that the RPD did not err in its state protection analysis or in its findings. The RPD's findings are based on the evidence. Upon a review of the evidence, I have reached the same conclusion as the RPD. [61] I find that the Appellants have failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Nigeria with clear and convincing evidence. I also find that the evidence establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellants would be able to obtain adequate and effective state protection in Nigeria. CONCLUSION [62] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "M. Pettinella" M. Pettinella March 15, 2018 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, at para. 103. 2 Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, at paras. 69-74; X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 55-66. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 68-75. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 76-78. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 79-101. 7 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385. 8 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, Section 3(3)(g)(iii). 9 M.C.I. v. Singh, Parminder (F.C.A., No. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, De Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96; Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C., no., IMM-6711-13), Gagné, 28 October 2014, 2014 FC 1022. 10 Raza, 2007 FCA 385. 11 Singh, 2016 FCA 96, para. 54. 12 Abdullahi, Fadumo Sharif v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3447-15), Annis, March 3, 2016, 2016 FC 260. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 58-59, 61-63. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 68, para. 3. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 69, para. 4. 16 Hassan, Jamila Mahdi v. M.E.I., (F.C.A., no. A-831-90), Isaac, Heald, Mahoney, October 22, 1992; (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.); [1992] FCJ No. 946. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 244, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (31 March 2017), item 7.31, Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), Response to Information Request NGA105451.E, 11 March 2016, at pp. 5-6. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 344. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 348. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 349. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 19. 22 At approximately 40:58 of audio recording of RPD hearing. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p. 395. 24 At approximately 1:02:02 of audio recording of RPD hearing. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 391-394. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 294. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 395. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 18 RAD.25.02 (September 11, 2014) Disponible en français RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-11815 TB7-11816 TB7-11817