TB7-12472

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 : TB7-12472 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 Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision June 4, 2018 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Ochiemuan Okojie 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 OF THE APPEAL [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Nigeria, appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He submits that the RPD committed errors in assessing his credibility and for determining that an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists for him in Abuja. Having found that the RPD did not err in its credibility findings, or in its determination that an internal flight alternative exists for the Appellant in Abuja, I am confirming the decision of the RPD and dismissing the appeal. BACKGROUND [2] The Appellant alleges that he is wanted by police in Nigeria because of his ties to the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). At one time, the Appellant drove his uncle to MASSOB meetings where he would occasionally meet high-ranking MASSOB members. [3] In or about June 2014, the Appellant borrowed money from a friend named XXXX. When the Appellant did not pay XXXX back fast enough, XXXX began to extort the Appellant. XXXX threatened to report the Appellant to police because of his ties to the MASSOB. The Appellant eventually paid XXXX back; however, XXXX continued to extort the Appellant. [4] While the Appellant was vacationing in Canada, XXXX went to the Appellant's house in Nigeria with police, shouting that the Appellant was a member of MASSOB. Police left a Letter of Invitation requesting that the Appellant attend the police command headquarters. Fearing arrest by police because he was accused of being a member of MASSOB, the Appellant filed a claim for refugee protection. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [5] As held by the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica, the Refugee Appeal Division (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.1 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 Credibility Police Letter of Invitation [6] The RPD noted numerous irregularities with a document allegedly issued by police in Nigeria expressing their interest to interview the Appellant. It noted that the Nigerian police logo on the document differed from the description of the Nigerian police logo found in the National Documentation Package (NDP). It also noted that the stamp on the document was printed onto the page and not stamped, and the signature is over the stamp rather than under it. It noted that the language and tone of the letter is not consistent with the language and tone of a document that compares to a warrant or summons, and it contained a significant typographical error. The RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, that the police Letter of Invitation document is not a genuine document, and the presumption that it is a valid police document is rebutted. [7] The Appellant maintains that the Letter of Invitation is a genuine document that was validly issued by the Nigerian police. He submits that the letterheaded paper and logo is that of the Nigerian police, and the RPD committed errors in assessing the letter and engaged in microscopic examination of the letter. He argues that there were no apparent differences between his letter and what the RPD tried to point out in its reasons. He maintains that the RPD panel member is not an expert, and she failed to state that she has any specialized knowledge in assessing forged documents. He maintains that the RPD's plausibility findings regarding the language and tone of the letter are not supported by the evidence. He maintains that the RPD had no valid reasons to reject the letter. [8] In my view, the Appellant's argument fails for the following reasons. There are significant irregularities on the face of the Letter of Invitation to cast doubt on its authenticity. [9] The logo on the Letter of Invitation3 differs from examples of the Nigeria Police logo found on official police correspondence in Nigeria.4 As noted by the RPD, branches surround the crest in the logo on the Letter of Invitation when the examples of the official logo show no branches are around the crest. Also, the ends of the ribbon at the bottom of the logo on the Letter of Invitation are different from the ends of the ribbon at the bottom of the logo on the examples of the official logo. Documentary evidence indicates that the police logo displayed on police reports is the same across Nigeria and does not vary, and all police correspondence must be on letterhead bearing the police logo. The fact that the logo on the Letter of Invitation differs from the example of official logos in the documentary package undermines the authenticity of the Letter of Invitation. [10] The RPD observed that the stamp on the Letter of Invitation appeared to be pixelated and the ink had not bled through to the back of the page. It found it more likely than not that the stamp was printed onto the page and not stamped. It noted that the signature of the issuer is over the stamp rather than under. It commented that the purpose of a stamp on a signature is to prevent forgeries and consequently stamps are usually over signatures not underneath. The RPD was not wrong to note these irregularities. Stamps and signatures on documents are security features. A stamp that is printed rather than stamped on a document undermines the security feature. A signature over the stamp also undermines the security feature. The fact that both of these irregularities are found on the Letter of Invitation further undermine the authenticity of the letter. [11] The RPD was also not wrong to note that the language and tone of the letter was not consistent with the language and tone of a document that compares to a warrant or summons. The RPD noted that the language is friendly and invitational, beginning with "You are cordially invited", rather than legal and mandatory. It noted that the form letter states that the Appellant "is invited to interview the Area Commander" rather than being invited to be interviewed by the Area Commander. The RPD found it unlikely that a form letter would contain such a significant typographical error. I agree. English is the official language of Nigeria.5 It would be reasonable to expect official form documents from police to not contain errors, especially errors that change the nature of the request outlined in the form. I find that the irregularities noted above further undermine the authenticity of the Letter of Invitation. [12] Also, I note the prevalence of fraudulent documents from Nigeria. Documentary evidence indicates that Benin City is a centre of the engraving industry, and practically any falsified document can be procured there. There are also numerous reports of Nigerian fraudulent documents used internationally.6 The prevalence of fraudulent documents in Nigeria undermines the reliability of the Letter of Invitation the Appellant presented. [13] 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 or where such verification is inconclusive.7 In this case, the irregularities on the Appellant's Letter of Invitation are sufficient evidence to cast doubt on its authenticity. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Letter of Invitation is not authentic. Since I am able to make a determination based on contradictory evidence that calls into question the authenticity of the document, the presumption that it is authentic is rebutted. I also find that the Appellant's presentation of the inauthentic letter undermines the Appellant's credibility and the credibility of his allegation that he is wanted by police in Nigeria. Father's affidavit [14] Since the affidavit from the Appellant's father describes the police visit in which the Letter of Invitation was left for the Appellant, and the RPD found that the Letter of Invitation is not a genuine document, the RPD found that the father's statements regarding how he received the document are not reliable. It found, on a balance of probabilities, that the affidavit is not genuine. [15] The Appellant submits that the RPD does not have valid reasons to reject the affidavit from his father because, apart from confirming the letter from the police, it corroborated the central issues of his claim including the fact that the police were looking for him because of his suspected membership in the MASSOB. He submits that the RPD had no reasonable reasons to reject the affidavit, and its reasons for rejection resulted from an earlier error that the RPD committed that was based on implausibility findings that were not supported by any evidence. [16] I have found that the RPD's findings regarding the Letter of Invitation are supported by the evidence. The Appellant's presentation of a false Letter of Invitation adversely impacts the weight I can assign to the affidavit of his father. Submitting a false or irregular document may have an impact on the weight assigned to other documents provided by a refugee claimant, especially when they are interrelated.8 In his affidavit, the Appellant's father indicates that police handed him a letter of invitation from the Area Commander to give to his son.9 Having found that the Letter of Invitation was not genuine, I give no weight to the affidavit of the Appellant's father in terms of establishing that police are looking for the Appellant. Conclusion on documents regarding police persecution [17] The RPD found that the documents the Appellant presented to substantiate his allegation that he is being persecuted by police are false. It found that this is sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Appellant's testimony was truthful. The RPD found the Appellant's testimony on the issue of persecution by the Nigerian police was not trustworthy, and, on a balance of probabilities, he is not wanted by the police in Nigeria. [18] The RPD was not wrong to find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant is not wanted by the police in Nigeria. I find the same. The Appellant submitted a false document to support his allegation. His father's affidavit deserves no weight in supporting the allegation since the affiant alleged to have received a letter of invitation from police that has been found to be fraudulent. The credibility of the Appellant's allegation that he is wanted by police is undermined by the presentation of a false supporting document. Admissibility of evidence submitted on appeal [19] The Appellant tendered the following documents as proposed new evidence in support of his appeal: (a) Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant's cousin), dated July 20, 2017;10 and (b) Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant's father), dated July 24, 2017.11 [20] The Appellant maintains that the affidavits from his cousin and father constitute new evidence that falls within subsection 110(4) of the IRPA because it was not reasonably available until after the rejection of his claim. He points out that the information contained in the affidavits postdates the rejection of his claim. The Appellant submits that the affidavit evidence also meets the requirements set out in Raza in that it is credible and relevant to his claim. He points out that the affidavits show that police are still looking for him in Nigeria, including Abuja. He submits that this evidence is contrary to the conclusion reached by the RPD that he would be safe in Abuja. [21] In my view, while the affidavits identified as items (a) and (b) above, on their face, meet the requirements of subsection 110(4), because it is evidence that allegedly arose after the rejection of the Appellant's claim, it is not credible evidence. [22] The Appellant's cousin indicates in his affidavit that police were looking for the Appellant in Abuja as police asked him at a checkpoint on June 16, 2017 if he was related to the Appellant. The Appellant's father reiterates this in his affidavit. [23] I have credibility concerns with the affidavits. This affidavit evidence must be considered in context. I note that neither affidavit is accompanied by identification documents verifying the identity of the affiant or the address of XXXX XXXX XXXX who allegedly resides in Abuja. This is very important considering that Mr. XXXX alleges to reside in Abuja, the IFA location identified by the RPD, where he was stopped by police. These deficiencies undermine the reliability of the affidavits. [24] More importantly, the Appellant presented a police Letter of Invitation to the RPD that has been found to be fraudulent. I have given no weight to an earlier affidavit from the Appellant's father in terms of supporting the Appellant's allegation that he is wanted by police, because the father alleged to have received from police a Letter of Invitation found to be fraudulent. The second affidavit from the Appellant's father, identified as item (b), does not make the Appellant's incredible story about being wanted by police credible. The credibility of the Appellant's allegation that he is wanted by police in Nigeria is undermined by his presentation of a fraudulent police document. The Appellant has shown a lack of credibility with respect to his allegation that he is wanted by police in Nigeria. In my view, this creates credibility concerns with the evidence of a further witness. [25] In addition, police stopping the Appellant's cousin in Abuja and asking if he knew the Appellant two days after the Appellant had mailed his negative RPD decision12 - a decision containing a finding that he had an internal flight alternative in Abuja - is an incredible coincidence. Prior to the rejection of his claim, no credible evidence was presented to indicate that police were looking for the Appellant in Nigeria. The timing of the incident in Abuja is so coincidental as to render it implausible. [26] Considering the above, the Appellant's contention that police were looking for him in Abuja becomes very difficult to believe. When considered along with the Appellant's lack of credibility with respect to police looking for him in Nigeria and his presentation of a fraudulent police document, his cousin's chance encounter with police in Abuja is simply beyond belief. The contents of the affidavits are so implausible as to render them, in the totality of the circumstances, not sufficiently credible or trustworthy on their face. I therefore find this evidence to be inadmissible. Request for an oral hearing [27] The Appellant requests an oral hearing, pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. [28] My jurisdiction to convene an oral hearing is limited: there must be admissible new evidence that raises a serious issue of credibility, is central, and determinative.13 No new evidence has been admitted, and so no hearing can be convened. The Appellant's request for an oral hearing is denied. Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) [29] The RPD accepted, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's uncle was a member of the MASSOB, the Appellant had worked as a driver for his uncle, and that XXXX is seeking to make the Appellant be perceived to be a member of MASSOB. The RPD found, however, that the Appellant could avoid this situation by moving to Abuja. The RPD noted that the only reason the Appellant gave for not being able to relocate to Abuja is that the police were searching for him and that police in Nigeria operate across the whole country. However, the RPD had found that police are not searching for the Appellant and noted that the Appellant had not alleged that XXXX would be able to locate or extort him in Abuja. The RPD indicated that there is no evidence to establish that the Appellant would be persecuted by XXXX in Abuja. [30] The Appellant points out that he testified that he would not be safe in Abuja because the Nigeria Police that are looking for him are a federal police force, and they have their central office in Abuja. He also points out that he testified that he would not be safe in Abuja because he is running from the police, agents of the state. He submits that the RPD ignored relevant evidence in the NDP which shows that relocation is not possible when the state is the agent of persecution. [31] In my view, the Appellant's argument fails for the following reasons. The RPD found that police are not searching for the Appellant in Nigeria. Therefore, the Appellant's assertion that he would not be safe in Abuja because the Nigeria Police are looking for him is without merit. Also, the RPD noted that the Appellant had not alleged that XXXX would be able to locate or extort him in Abuja. The RPD was not wrong to find that there was no evidence to establish that the Appellant would be persecuted by XXXX in Abuja. I find that the Appellant would be safe in Abuja, on a balance of probabilities. [32] The Appellant maintains that the RPD ignored evidence in the NDP indicating that Nigeria is a multi-ethnic nation in which Nigerians generally identify more strongly with their ethnic group than with their nationality. He also points to evidence indicating that, even though Nigerians have the right to relocate within the country, the authorities of any given area distinguish between indigenes and settlers or migrants in terms of access to public resources and privileges such as access to land and education. The Appellant submits that he would suffer discrimination in Abuja based on his ethnicity. He submits that the RPD committed errors, ignored relevant evidence, and failed to apply the objective documentary evidence to the proposed IFA analysis. [33] The Appellant's argument is without merit. While the Appellant points to evidence indicating that the authorities of any given area distinguish between indigenes and settlers or migrants in terms of access to public resources and privileges, the same evidence indicates that indigeneship status is less important in big cities such as Abuja, in terms of access to public jobs or ownership of land, because the indigene population in this area has been overwhelmed by migrants. Also indicated is that non-indigenes can generally find work where there is a demand for it.14 This evidence suggests that non-natives in Abuja do not face discrimination as a non-native does in less populous locations in Nigeria. The evidence leads me to conclude that the Appellant would not be disadvantaged by being a non-native in Abuja. [34] The RPD also found that an internal flight alternative to Abuja is reasonable for the Appellant. It noted that the Appellant is a resourceful and enterprising businessman having built a successful business with a partner. It also noted that the Appellant has skills in repairing cars and running a business. The RPD found that the Appellant has shown himself to be a resilient businessman, earning money even after he sold his property and tools to pay XXXX and to pay for his trip to Canada. The RPD found that the Appellant could use his skills in car repair and business to support himself in Abuja. [35] I agree with the RPD. The Appellant is XXXX XXXX old. He has a secondary high school education.15 He has worked with his father in the dry cleaning business, apprenticed in automobile repair, and co-owned an automobile maintenance business.16 He speaks English and Igbo.17 He indicated in his Basis of Claim Form (BoC) narrative that he had travelled to the United States for personal and business reasons.18 Based on his education, work experience, business experience and travel, the Appellant has likely gained skills and knowledge that would make him eligible and suitable for jobs or business opportunities in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria with approximately 2.5 million inhabitants.19 No credible evidence was presented to suggest that the Appellant would be at a greater disadvantage in Abuja of finding employment or business opportunities than any other Nigerian man with his education, work, and business experience. [36] I have considered other important aspects of the Appellant's profile as it relates to the viability of an IFA. It would be reasonable to expect that the Appellant would be familiar with religious practices in Abuja. The Appellant indicated in his BoC that he is Christian.20 Documentary evidence indicates that there are about equal numbers of Christians and Muslims in the Federal Capital Territory where Abuja is located.21 The Appellant testified in the English language and he indicated in his BoC and Generic Application Form for Canada that he speaks English and Igbo.22 English is the official language of Nigeria.23 I am satisfied that the Appellant would be familiar with the language and religion in the IFA city of Abuja. [37] I note that the Appellant's parents live in Nigeria. The Appellant indicated that his mother and father gave him money to pay off his debt to XXXX. The Appellant provided no credible evidence to indicate that he could not continue to receive support from his family members in Nigeria. It is open to the Appellant to involve himself in a church. I reasonably believe that the Appellant could find support in a religious community in Abuja if he chooses. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant could have moral and spiritual support in Abuja. [38] Based upon the Appellant's age, education, work experience, business experience and language capabilities, I find that there are no serious social or economic barriers to the Appellant relocating to Abuja. Therefore, I find that it would not be unreasonable, in all circumstances, including those particular to the Appellant, for him to seek refuge there. [39] Based on the above, I find that the Appellant has an internal flight alternative in Abuja. [40] My own analysis of the record leads me to find that the RPD did not err in its findings on credibility or internal flight alternative. I find that the Appellant has a viable internal flight alternative in Abuja. The question of internal flight alternative is integral to both the definition of a Convention refugee and that of a person in need of protection. As the Appellant has a viable internal flight alternative in his own country, he does not require Canada's surrogate protection. CONCLUSION [41] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, I confirm the decision of the RPD and dismiss the appeal. (signed) "M. Pettinella" M. Pettinella June 4, 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 p. 115. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 103, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (31 March 2017), item 10.3, Response to Information Request Number (RIR) NGA103988.E, 23 April 2012, at pp. 3, 6, 7. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 103, NDP for Nigeria (31 March 2017), item 1.6, US Central Intelligence Agency, Nigeria: The World Factbook, November 10, 2016, at p. 2. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 103, NDP for Nigeria (31 March 2017), item 3.10, RIR NGA104617.E, 13 November 2013, at pp. 1, 6-7. 7 Mohanarajan, Sriahilandtharanathan v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5482-00), Simpson, November 6, 2000; Aboubacar, Habib Rashad v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5925-00), Dawson, February 13, 2002, 2002 FCT 162. 8 Uddin, Nizam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-895-01), Gibson, April 26, 2002, 2002 FCT 451. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 112, para. 15. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 45. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 46. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 1-2. 13 IRPA s. 110(6). 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 103, NDP for Nigeria (31 March 2017), item 13.1, RIR NGA104216.E, 20 November 2012, at p. 9. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 55. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 55. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 11, 46. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 30. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 103, NDP for Nigeria (March 31, 2017), item 1.6, Nigeria: The World Factbook, at p. 3. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 11. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 103, NDP for Nigeria (March 31, 2017), item 12.1, Nigeria: International Religious Freedom Report for 2015, at p. 3. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 11, 46. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 103, NDP for Nigeria (March 31, 2017), item 1.6, at p. 2. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-12472 14 RAD.25.02 (April 24, 2018) Disponible en français