TB8-19303

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-19303 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 February 25, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Patricia Broad Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Roy C. Amadi Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister R. Randhawa Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is a citizen of Nigeria who appeals the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD's) rejection of her claim for protection. She claims that she was targeted by police when she complained about their attempts to extort money from her. [2] Having reviewed the record, I dismiss the appeal. I do so, as I find that the Appellant has an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Lagos. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant bases her claim on the following. [4] The Appellant states that she fears persecution and other risks by the Nigerian police. [5] She and her husband lived in Eket, Nigeria. She has four children. She worked for an XXXXandXXXX XXXX XXXXinXXXX XXXX XXXX. She also XXXXand XXXX XXXX for women. In XXXX 2016, she was returning from a trip to Canada. Her car was pulled over by the police, who insisted on a bribe. She refused, was taken into custody, and had to spend the night at the police station. There, she was sexually harassed, and the police touched her in a sexual manner. She was released the next day. [6] Through her lawyer, the Appellant laid two complaints, or petitions, against the police. The first was to the Commissioner of Police and was dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016. This did not produce results. The second one was to the Inspector-General of Police and was dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. This, too, did not produce any results. However, the police retaliated. [7] In XXXX 2017, she was threatened with death because she refused to withdraw her complaint against police. She went to Port Harcourt and received a threatening phone call while there. She went to a village and changed her cell number. She left Nigeria in XXXX 2017. Since she left, her family has been harassed by police who have called to ask about her whereabouts. The callers threatened her children too. The police have also come to her house to look for her. [8] The RPD found that the Appellant has an IFA in Lagos. NEW EVIDENCE [9] The Appellant did not provide new evidence with her Appellant's Record. However, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (Minister) has intervened1 and provided new evidence. This evidence consists of: (1) Passport verification - Request Republic of Ghana, XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018; (2) An application summary - signed passport application, Republic of Ghana; (3) An application for a Republic of Ghana Passport, XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014; (4) A certified copy of Entry in Register of Births, XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014; and (5) Republic of Ghana National Health Insurance Scheme Membership Photo Identification Card. [10] Further, the Appellant provided a reply that included late evidence.2 The Appellant has submitted letters and other historical documents as late evidence, including: (1) An affidavit from the Appellant, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018; (2) A certificate from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Nigeria for the period 2001 - 2007; (3) A letter from XXXX XXXXLimited, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014; (4) A letter from XXXX XXXX Limited, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015; (5) The second page of XXXX XXXX XXXX Services Ltd., XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, p. 16 (the first page is in RPD Record; and (6) XXXX XXXX Limited (certificate), XXXX XXXX XXXX 2008. [11] There are no statutory limits on the Minister's ability to provide evidence. The intervention documents are accepted onto the record. [12] Similarly, there are no statutory limits to the Appellant for providing evidence in response to the Minister. It is clear that the Appellant received the Minister's evidence. In providing the response, the Appellant has complied with RAD Rule 5 and RAD Rule 29(7). The Appellant did not provide confirmation that she provided the Minister with a copy of the submissions. However, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) records show that the RAD sent a copy of the Appellant's reply to the Minister on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. The Minister has not been prejudiced by this noncompliance, and I accept the Appellant's response, consisting of new evidence and submissions, onto the record. Further, given that the documents are in response to the Minister's documents, the Appellant could not have reasonably been expected to provide them before the date of rejection or have provided them with reasonable effort with the Appellant's record. I find that they contain information that is new and relevant, and they are credible documents. In terms of identity, they have some probative value. They are admitted onto the record. [13] In her submissions, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, the Appellant maintains that she is a Nigerian citizen. She argues that the Ghanaian documents resulted from a scam where she tried to go to the World Cup in 2014. An agent entered false information and took her money. She points out errors in documents. She notes that she could not be living and working in Ghana at the time she was living and working in Nigeria. [14] I noted that some of the Minister's documentation was not clear. I requested a more legible copy from the Minister, and I was provided with more documentation,3 including: (1) Application Summary signed with fingerprints and photographs of the Appellant and the children; (2) Application for a Republic of Ghana Passport; (3) Passport Application supporting documents submitted by the Appellant; (4) Certified copy of Entry in Register of Births, Republic of Ghana, for the Appellant and children; (5) Passport application supporting documents submitted by the Appellant, Republic of Ghana; (6) National Health Insurance Scheme Membership Photo Identification Card for the Appellant. [15] This was sent to the Appellant on January 12, 20214 and with a response due on January 27, 2021. [16] In the RPD's decision, and in the transcript, there was mention of the Appellant's passport from Nigeria. However, there was not one on the record. The RAD requested the original passport, and the Minister provided it on January 18, 2021.5 On the same day, the RAD provided the Appellant with an opportunity to provide submissions on the passport. [17] The Appellant responded with an affidavit, dated February 9, 2021.6 She maintained that she was the victim of a scam. She also provided submissions, dated February 8, 2021. [18] All further documentation was submitted in response to the RAD's requests for further submissions and documentation. I have allowed the Appellant's affidavit of February 9, 2021 onto the record. It arose after the date of rejection. The Appellant could not have provided them with reasonable effort with the Appellant's record. It contains information that is new and relevant, and it is a credible document. In terms of the Appellant's arguments, it has some probative value. It is admitted onto the record. ORAL HEARING [19] There has not been a request for an oral hearing until the Appellant's last submissions, dated February 9, 2021. I have the authority to hold an appeal for the new evidence from the Minister, but the evidence submitted on appeal has to meet the requirements of subsection 110(6). Similarly, the Appellant's affidavits and other accepted documentation would have to meet the requirements of subsection 110(6). In this case, the new documentation from the Minister is not central to the decision. As will be discussed, the new evidence does not definitely establish that the Appellant is a citizen and/or that she has rights akin to a citizen in Ghana. The new evidence does not justify a decision to allow or reject the claim. Similarly, the Appellant's affidavits and the documentation does not provide information that raises a serious issue with credibility. It is already in issue. For reasons that will be given, whether or not she has citizenship rights in Ghana is not central nor determinative in this appeal. For these reasons, the RAD will not hold a hearing. ANALYSIS [20] I have conducted an independent assessment of the evidence and arguments. This review includes reviewing the transcript of the entire hearing. A recording of the hearing is on record. Further, in adjudicating the Chair's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.7 [21] In keeping with the "Policy on National Documentation Packages in Refugee Determination Proceedings",8 the RAD has considered the most recent National Documentation Package (NDP) at the time of writing the decision. Further, as a forward-looking risk is being assessed, the most recent NDP is the most relevant. On January 27, 2021, the Appellant was provided with notice that the RAD would consider the new NDP9 and was given the opportunity to provide submissions regarding it. She did so in her submissions of February 8, 2021. Identity [22] The Minister participated at the RPD hearing and provided documentation to the RPD regarding the Appellant's identity in Ghana. This included: (1) CGMS documents; (2) passport Verification from Ghana; (3) signed passport application from Ghana; (4) application for a Ghana passport in Ghana; (5) certified copy of Entry in Register of Births; (6) National Health Insurance Scheme Membership Identification from Ghana. [23] I have considered this documentation with all of the documentation regarding identity, which is extensive, on record. [24] The Appellant's evidence regarding her Nigerian citizenship is vague. The RPD noted that the Appellant's testimony regarding identity "deteriorated markedly in terms of its coherence, logic and precision".10 [25] The Appellant provided documents to the RAD in support of her arguments that she is a Nigerian citizen; however, none of these documents have the Appellant's address on them. Further, while she provided school documentation, not all of the documentation has her name on it; however, the Akwa Ibom certificate11 does have her name. This documentation is not persuasive evidence that the Appellant does not have some tie with Ghana. [26] In her response to the Minister's submissions, the Appellant argued that she had applied for travel documents in Ghana, as she was duped by an unscrupulous travel agent when she wanted to "attend and participate in the festivities of the female world cup tournament hosted by Canada in 2014".12 In fact, the World Cup for women was held in 2015. Further, it is not clear why she would need a passport from Ghana to attend the World Cup in Canada instead of using her own Nigerian passport. I do not find that this explanation is sufficient. Further, the evidence on this point is not consistent. The Appellant has not been consistent with the reason that she applied for the travel documents in 2014. At the hearing, she simply stated that she wanted to apply for the Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to travel in 2014.13 At the RAD, she has argued that it was to attend the World Cup. The flaws in the evidence regarding why there are documents showing a link with Ghana weigh against her explanation that she was ill-used by an agent. [27] In her most recent affidavit, dated February 8, 2021, the Appellant argues that she could not have read the documents in the earlier scans from the Minister. However, there is documentation in the more recent scans of documents that the Appellant owned that shows another link with Ghana. The clear colour scan of her passport shows that her Canadian visa, issued on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016, was issued in Accra which is located in Ghana.14 This was two years after the World Cup. While other visas do state that she is from Nigeria, the Canadian visa was issued in a different country. The Appellant has not explained how this occurred. [28] The Appellant argues that there are errors in the Ghanaian passport application. The Appellant's gender is clearly wrong in one of the documents as well as in the CGMS documentation.15 However, this is a minor error. The Appellant also argues that she was not a XXXX, but there are frequent references in the evidence to her long-term involvement as a XXXX XXXXandXXXX XXXX goods. She points this out several times in her Basis of Claim (BOC), specifically: (1) Paragraph 2 - noting that she would not give the police "expensive items of XXXX XXXX XXXXandXXXX XXXX that were meant for my XXXX XXXX."16 (2) Paragraph 4 - "Given the nature of my contract, I routinely engage in XXXX of XXXX mostly from XXXX XXXX and resell to my customers when I am XXXX XXXX. Sometimes, when I travel, I buy different items depending on demand and resell to augment our family income."17 [29] Later in the BOC, the Appellant states that she was good at this (XXXXandXXXX XXXX), that she had done it in the past, and that she was engaged in it in 2016 when she came to Canada. Further, it was the goods she bought to sell that were the focus of the police's attention in XXXX 2017 when she returned to Nigeria and they stopped her. The BOC contains evidence that she has been an active XXXX on an ongoing basis. At the RPD hearing, she also testified that she would "buy things and sell to other people".18 In her Schedule A, at section 8, she wrote that, from 1993 to present day, she was a part-time XXXX XXXX.19 I do not find that the term "XXXX" is an error. Rather, her insistence that she was not a XXXX contradicts her evidence and weighs against her credibility on this issue. [30] Even the use of names is not consistent. There is further ambiguity as she used her alias, XXXX XXXX, for the TRV. The Appellant testified that her father's name was XXXX XXXX XXXX,20 and in her affidavit, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 20018, at paragraph 5, she states that her father's name is XXXX XXXX XXXX and that her mother's name is XXXX XXXX. In her application for a Ghanaian passport, the Appellant noted that her father's name is XXXX XXXX and that her mother's name is XXXX XXXX.21 I have considered her argument that she used an agent to apply for this document. However, there is repeated inconsistency in the names on record that make her identity and her link with Ghana ambiguous. [31] I have considered the Appellant's argument that the agent helped prepare these documents and that she was cheated of her money. However, there is not only a TRV application noted in the GCMS record in XXXX 201422 and Ghanaian passport applications from earlier in 2014;23 there are also the birth certificates which are different types of documents as well as the health care card.24 In addition, there is travel information from a later date showing the link with Ghana, namely, the Canadian visa from 2016 issued from Accra, Ghana. These are different documents at different points of time that show this connection with Ghana. Further, the Appellant testified that there was a severance in the relationship with the agent. She noted that that the company did not employ the agent and that she did not have enough information to complaint to the police about them. Further, she testified that she stopped using them.25 This may address, in part, the issues with the applications in 2014. However, it does not address the visa from 2016. [32] The Appellant did not provide a birth certificate for Nigeria; the only ones on record state that the Appellant and her daughters were born in Ghana. But there are some issues with them as well. Almost all of them are signed by a Registrar on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014 or XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014; and one is registered on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014, but the Registrar's signature is dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014, almost 12 months earlier. The similarity of the dates could mean that they are forged or that they were simply registered at the same time. Either conclusion would be based on speculation. There is not a birth certificate from Nigeria on record, although this is clearly an issue; the Appellant has instead submitted documentation that is not determinative. It is not the role of the RAD to create the Appellant's arguments for her nor is it the role of the RAD to speculate as to the reasons why relevant evidence would not be submitted for her. The Appellant has had several opportunities to provide evidence of her identity and has failed to do so. Summary of citizenship in Ghana [33] This is an issue not only of identity but also of whether the Appellant could be a citizen of Ghana or have the status that is substantially similar to that of the nationals in Ghana. If so, she may be excluded and/or she may have to show that she is a Convention refugee and/or a person in need of protection there as well. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) is clear that one must show that the risk is present in all countries of reference. Although she has had many opportunities, the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that she does not have citizenship or rights akin to a citizen in Ghana. [34] The Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that she does not have a connection with Ghana or that she does not have both Ghanaian and Nigerian citizenship. While it is difficult to prove a negative, she has not provided documentation such as a birth certificate. Nigeria does not recognize dual citizenship.26 However, there is insufficient evidence to find that it is more likely than not that Ghana would not recognize dual citizenship, especially as both are members of the Economic Community of West African States. [35] That being said, any conclusion that the Appellant had dual citizenship or the rights akin to citizenship would be based on speculation. The Appellant's passport bears hallmarks of a genuine Nigerian passport.27 Even with the steps taken and with the Canadian visa in the Appellant's passport from 2016, there is still insufficient evidence to find that it is more likely than not that the Appellant has Ghanaian citizenship or the rights and obligations akin to a citizen in Ghana. [36] However, even if the Appellant does not have dual citizenship or the rights akin to citizenship in Ghana and is a citizen of Nigeria, she has an IFA in Lagos. Does the Appellant have an IFA in Lagos? [37] In this appeal, the determinative issue is whether there is an IFA in Lagos. [38] At the outset, I accept a nexus of political opinion. According to the Appellant's account, she has been targeted because she complained against the police. I find that this is a political act. Further, in so doing, she has provoked the police to respond. This provides a nexus of political opinion. [39] The test for assessing an IFA is two-pronged and is set out in the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Rasaratnam.28 (1) The Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA. (2) Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claim, for him to seek refuge there.29 [40] Both prongs must be satisfied to find that an appellant has an IFA. Once the issue of IFA has been raised and the potential IFAs have been identified, the burden of proof rests with an appellant to show that he/she does not have an IFA. The finding of an IFA must be based on a distinct evaluation of the region for that purpose taking into account an appellant's personal circumstances. An IFA must be a realistic and attainable option. An appellant cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or undergo undue hardship in traveling there and staying there. The hardship associated with dislocation and relocation is not the kind of undue hardship that renders an IFA unreasonable. The standard is high and requires proof of adverse conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimant in travelling to and in living in the IFA location.30 [41] An analysis should take into consideration the Appellant's characteristics. In this appeal, the Appellant is well educated. According to her documentation, she attended a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to receive a XXXXinXXXX XXXX.31 She has demonstrated a variety of skills in XXXX XXXXas aXXXX XXXX XXXXin XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand as a XXXX. Her husband is in Nigeria, and, according to the record, she had kept in touch with him.32 There is insufficient evidence to conclude that they are separated; rather, the weight of the evidence is that the Appellant has family in Nigeria and would not be a single woman relocating to Lagos. Further, the Appellant speaks English.33 Is there a serious possibility of persecution in Lagos? [42] The Appellant argues that the police would be able to find her in Lagos. She notes that the state is the persecutor and that there are more than a few rogue members of the police who seek her. The police are centralized as the inspector general of police oversees the law enforcement. She quotes a UK Home Office report that states that there are 350,000 police members covering Nigeria; they are known as corrupt and inefficient.34 Further, the US Department of State report in the most recent NDP illustrates that there is corruption and impunity.35 [43] However, the Appellant has not provided evidence to substantiate her claim that the police are centralized and coordinated to a degree where it is more likely than not that they might be able to find the Appellant. The police are numerous, and there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it is more likely than not that they work together. I have considered the ability that the police have to track people. This is set out in the Immigration and Refugee Board's (IRB's) Response to Information Request (RIR).36 This RIR notes several measures in the police computer network, and I have considered them. The National Public Security Communication System has been effectively "mothballed." The International Criminal Police Organization Databases is a system where INTERPOL has become partners with several agencies in Nigeria. These seem to focus mostly on crimes such as drugs, immigration, stolen documentation, stolen vehicles, etc. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Appellant is on the list or would likely be put on it. There is a network of police computers in airports, but the Appellant travelled. There is a system where people can report crimes, "Hawkeye Reporter", but the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to find that it is more likely than not that someone in Lagos would know her and report her. There are plans to connect police stations in Nigeria through a crime and criminal tracing system, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the plans came to fruition. The Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence regarding the systems noted in the IRB's RIR to find that there is a likelihood that the police might be able to find her even if they wanted to do so in Lagos. [44] Further, the lapse of time weighs against a finding of the likelihood of persecution. There must be sufficient evidence of a forward-looking risk. In this appeal, the Appellant's petition has been inactive for years now. The first petition is dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016; the second petition is dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017.37 Further, there is a significant lapse in time, over two years, since the last recorded incident of persecution. In the Appellant's amended BOC sent to the RPD on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, the Appellant wrote that the police went to her husband's home, and when he went to the police, they did not want to help him. Also, unknown people went to his children's school to try to pick up the children.38 There is insufficient evidence that this was linked to an incident that happened to her years before that time. [45] Similarly, in this same BOC amendment, the Appellant wrote that her husband reports threatening phone calls, but the evidence is too vague to conclude that these calls are linked to police harassment. At the hearing, she clarified that he had received two phone calls;39 this is a limited amount of contact years ago. This is significant as her husband was not in hiding, and the contact was limited and a long time ago. He works in the same place that he has worked in for 21 years. He lives in the same home that the Appellant lived in for years.40 This evidence also weighs against the likelihood of persecution. [46] The Appellant testified that she received a threatening call while she was in Port Harcourt. However, she also testified that she had the same cell phone that she had from before, and they knew her number41 when she received the call in Port Harcourt. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the police contacted her after she changed her phone number. This evidence weighs against a finding that the police would likely be able to find the Appellant. [47] I find that there has been a significant amount of time that has passed since the police have shown an interest in the Appellant. This is particularly the case as the Appellant's affidavit from XXXX 2018 does not relate any more accounts of persecution. This weighs against a finding in favour of a forward-looking risk of persecution. Summary for whether there is a well-founded fear of persecution in Lagos [48] I have considered the Appellant's argument that the state is the agent of persecution, so there is a presumption that there is not an IFA. But each appeal must be considered on the merits of its own circumstances. In this appeal, the lapse of time since the last incident, the lack of evidence of a coordinated police force, and the fact that the Appellant would be located in a different city weighs against a presumption. In this case, the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient evidence that the agents of persecution had the interest or the capacity to find and harm the Appellant in Lagos.42 Is it reasonable for the Appellant to relocate to Lagos? [49] The Appellant did not provide submissions to address the reasonableness of the Appellant's relocation. In the more recent Memorandum of February 9, 2021, the Appellant refers to the law regarding the test for reasonability but does not provide evidence or arguments regarding how relocating and living in Lagos would create undue hardship for her. [50] The Chair's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution43 states that, in determining the reasonableness of a woman's recourse to an internal flight alternative, decision-makers should consider the ability of women, because of their gender, to travel safely to the IFA and to stay there without facing undue hardship. In determining the reasonableness of an IFA, the decision-makers should take into account factors including religious, economic, and cultural factors, and consider whether and how these factors affect women in the IFA. [51] As stated before, it is more likely than not that the Appellant will have her husband and family to support her; she is not a single woman. Indigeneity [52] The Appellant speaks Ibibio and is from the town of Eket, which is located in south-central Nigeria. Lagos is also in the south. While indigeneity can play a role in moves from the north to the south,44 the Appellant would be staying in the south. Lagos has a long history of accommodating non-indigenes even if it has a large Yoruba population.45 It does not implement practices based on indigeneity that are present throughout the country.46 The Appellant would not have to establish her state of origin to access publics services, civil service jobs or university posts.47 Further, Lagos does not reserve jobs for Lagos indigenes.48 Employment [53] Employment is an economic factor. However, the Appellant is exceptionally skilled in different areas. She has experience XXXXandXXXX XXXX. She has training in XXXX XXXX. There is a lack of evidence regarding her role in XXXX on XXXX XXXX when she is schooled in XXXX XXXX. However, this career trajectory demonstrates a lot of drive, ambition, and success. She was also a member of the XXXX XXXX and worked in the XXXX XXXX from 1997. From 2017, she has been a XXXXat aXXXX XXXX church.49 The Appellant has many skills in diverse areas. Further, as noted before, the Appellant is not likely to be on her own; rather, she would have the support of her husband. There is insufficient evidence that employment would present a barrier for the Appellant. Accommodation [54] Accommodation is another economic factor. As noted before, the Appellant is exceptionally skilled; it is likely that she will be able to find employment and acquire a good income. In addition, she has a husband. While she would not be able to acquire government assistance,50 the Appellant would have significant resources, including her husband. There is insufficient evidence that accommodation would present a barrier for the Appellant. Language [55] The Appellant can speak English, which is the national language of Nigeria.51 In Lagos, she would not experience a language barrier as she speaks English.52 Religion [56] The Appellant is a Christian.53 Christians compose about 45.9% of the population.54 The south of Nigeria is composed of a predominantly Christian population.55 There is insufficient evidence that Christianity would present a barrier to relocation. Cultural [57] Nigeria has a patriarchal culture.56 However, the impact is strongest on single women.57 The Appellant would not be alone; she will have her husband. She has already shown success in work and in her life in general. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Appellant would face cultural challenges that would present a significant barrier. Summary for whether it is reasonable for the Appellant to relocate and stay in Lagos [58] I have considered the challenges that this Appellant would face in her individual circumstances. However, even when I consider the cumulative effect of these challenges, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Appellant would face undue hardship should she have to relocate and stay in Lagos. It is reasonable for her to relocate to Lagos. Is the Appellant a person in need of protection? [59] The Appellant has requested that the RAD find that she is a Convention refugee and/or a person in need of protection.58 However, an IFA is determinative in both section 96 and 97 of the IRPA. [60] Further, I note that the standard of proof to show that there is not an IFA in a city for section 97 is higher than that for section 96 of the IRPA. The standard to establish that there is not an IFA in accordance with section 96 of the IRPA is whether there is more than a mere possibility of persecution; the standard to establish that there is not an IFA for section 97 of the IRPA is whether, on the balance of probabilities, one is in need of protection. This is a higher level of proof. Further, there is a difference in the type of harm. One must show that there is merely a serious possibility of persecution under section 96. Section 97 stipulates that one must show that there is a danger of torture or, alternatively, that there is a risk to one's life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The level of proof required to establish a sufficient risk is higher under section 97 than it is in section 96. As there is insufficient evidence to establish that the Appellant faces more than a mere possibility of persecution in Lagos, there is also insufficient evidence that she is a person in need of protection in Lagos. [61] Therefore, I do not find that the Appellant is a person in need of protection. CONCLUSION [62] 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) Patricia Broad Patricia Broad February 25, 2021 Date 1 Exhibit M-1, Minister's Notice of Intervention (July 10, 2018). 2 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Response (July 25, 2018). 3 Exhibit M-2, Minister's Documentation (December 23, 2020). 4 Exhibit RAD-3, Member's Direction (January 18, 2021). 5 Exhibit M-3, Minister's Response (January 18, 2021) with the Appellant's passports. 6 Exhibit P-4, Appellant's Response (received February 9, 2021) to Member's Direction (January 18, 2021). 7 Gender Guideline: Issued by the Chairperson, pursuant to Subsection 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 13, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 8 https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/policies/Pages/national-documentation-packages.aspx 9 Exhibit RAD-4, Member's Direction (January 27, 2021). 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD's Reasons and Decision, at para. 15. 11 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Response (July 25, 2018), at p. 20. 12 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Response (July 25, 2018), at p. 3, Appellant's Affidavit, dated July 23, 2018, at p. 1 13 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (April 30, 2018), at p. 27. 14 Exhibit M-3, Minister disclosure (passport sent to the Appellant on January 18, 2021), at p. 9. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 256. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 38, 48. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 25, 38, 48. 18 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (April 30, 2018), at p. 34. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 69. 20 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (April 30, 2018), at p. 42. 21 Exhibit M-1, Minister's Notice of Intervention (July 10, 2018), at p. 9. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 207. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 263. 24 Exhibit M-2, Minister's Documentation (December 23, 2020). 25 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (April 30, 2018), at pp. 28-30. 26 NPD for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), item 3.1, Nigeria, "Chapter III: Citizenship, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria", 1999. 27 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2017), item 3.20, IRB, RIR NGA105319.E, "Passports, including whether passports from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) are issued in Nigeria; information included in the passport; security measures to detect passport fraud; ..., November 4, 2015. 28 Rasaratnam v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991; [1992] 1 FC 706 (CA). 29 Thirunavukkarasu v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993; [1994] 1 FC 589 (CA); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (FCA) 30 M.C.I. v. Ranganathan (F.C.A., no. A-348-99), Létourneau, Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000; [2001] 2 FC 164 (CA). 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 69. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 55. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 62. 34 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 112, Appellant's Memorandum, paragraph 30. 35 Exhibit P-4, Appellant's Memorandum of February 9, 2021, paragraph 4. 36 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2017), item 10.4, IRB, RIR NGA106000.E, "Information on a national police computer network for information sharing; nature and extent of communication between police offices across the country; ...", November 21, 2017. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 126. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 54. 39 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (April 30, 2018), at p. 20. 40 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (April 30, 2018), at p. 22. 41 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (April 30, 2018), at pp. 19 and 23. 42 Essel, John v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-345-20), Grammond, November 2, 2020, 2020 FC 1025. 43 Gender Guideline: Issued by the Chairperson, pursuant to Subsection 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 13, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in paragraph 159(1)(h) of the IRPA. 44 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), item 13.1, IRB, RIR NGA106361.E, "Role of indigeneship in obtaining employment, housing and social services; how indigeneship is established and identified; obstacles faced by non-indigenes when relocating to Abuja, Lagos or Port Harcourt; ...", October 30, 2019, at p. 12. 45 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), item 13.1 (ibid.), at p. 15. 46 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), item 1.8, Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, "DFAT Country Information Report: Nigeria", March 9, 2018, at p. 16. 47 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), item 1.8 (ibid.), at p. 16. 48 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), item 13.1 (supra, footnote 44), at p. 16. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 69. 50 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), item 13.1 (supra, footnote 44), at pp. 17-18. 51 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), item 1.6, United States Central Intelligence Agency, "Nigeria, The World Factbook", November 18, 2020, at p. 3. 52 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), item 13.1 (supra, footnote 44), at p. 14. 53 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 16. 54 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020) item 1.6 (supra, footnote 51), World Fact Book. 55 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), item 12.6, IRB, RIR NGA104679.E, "Treatment of Christians who relocate from northern parts of Nigeria by people in Port Harcourt [River State]; whether they face linguistic, economic and social difficulties ...", December 6, 2013, at p. 1; item 13.1 (supra, footnote 44), at p. 16. 56 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), item 5.9, IRB, RIR NGA106362.E, "Whether women who head their own household, without male or family support, can obtain housing and employment in Abuja, Lagos, Ibadan, and Port Harcourt; government support services available to female-headed households ...", November 20, 2019, at p. 3. 57 See for example NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), item 5.9 (ibid.). 58 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at paragraph 113. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-19303 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