VB9-02273

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-02273 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 Vancouver, BC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision August 30, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Kim Polowek Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal David Matas Barrister and Solicitor Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant), citizen of Nigeria, appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated February 7, 2019, rejecting his claim for refugee protection on the basis that he has an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Benin City. He fears that if he returns to Nigeria he will be killed by Herdsmen, kidnapped or his daughter will be subject to forced female genital mutilation (FGM). He is asking the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to substitute the RPD determination for a positive one or in the alternative refer back to the RPD for re-determination. He has not requested an oral hearing but did submit new evidence which the RAD has accepted. Based on the RAD's independent review, the RAD agrees with the RPD's finding that the Appellant has an IFA in Benin City and this is determinative of his appeal. DETERMINATION [2] After considering the Appellant's arguments and all of the evidence, the RAD dismisses the Appellant's appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention1 refugees nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).2 The RAD finds the Appellant could live safely in Benin City and this relocation would not be objectively unreasonable for him. IDENTITY [3] The Appellant's identity as a citizen of Nigeria is established by a copy of his Nigerian passport in evidence.3 BACKGROUND [4] Around XXXX 2017, the Appellant and his neighbor challenged Fulani Herdsmen who were freely gazing around their property. They reported it to the police but were informed there is no law against open gazing. In XXXX 2018, the Appellant's home was vandalized and his dogs were killed. A week later, a herdsman attacked again shooting randomly and destroying property. One of the neighbors was killed during this incident. The Appellant and his wife fled and ended up taking refuge in different churches. The Appellant then decided to relocate east for safety but while travelling by bus, he was abducted by militants whom he states identified themselves as Delta Niger Militants. He was eventually released after a ransom payment. As the Appellant had a United States (US) visa already, he fled to the US in XXXX 2018 and then entered Canada to make his refugee claim. He alleges no IFA because his daughter is under threat of female genital mutilation by family members and he and his wife are opposed to it. He is also fearful of retribution from kidnappers who only received part of the ransom demanded. Admissibility of New Evidence Presented on Appeal [5] The Appellant is submitting new evidence for this appeal which is a statement from the Appellant which details what he perceives to be errors in the RPD decision. [6] Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that an Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of his claim or that was not reasonably available, or that he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. In Singh4 the Federal Court of Appeal dictates a narrow interpretation of subsection 110(4): the conditions set out therein must be met and there is no room for discretion on the part of the RAD. If the subsection 110(4) threshold is met, then the new evidence must also meet jurisprudential requirements of credibility, relevance and newness.5 [7] Given that the Appellant's new evidence is assessed by the RAD as an elaboration of what he views to be errors in the RPD decision and as such, part of his memorandum, the RAD finds this statement to be admissible. Role of the RAD [8] When reviewing the RPD decision, the RAD is required to independently assess all the evidence and determine whether the RPD erred in relation to each alleged error of law, fact or mixed fact and law. For this assessment, the standard of correctness as per the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Huruglica6 is applied. The RAD may defer to the RPD in the exceptional situation that the RPD had a meaningful advantage in the circumstances, and reasons will be provided in that situation. [9] The RAD finds that the RPD was not in an advantageous position regarding the assessment of the Appellant's evidence, and the RAD was able to review and understand the Appellant's testimony through listening to the entire oral hearing as well as a review of the documentary evidence. RPD Decision [10] The RPD found that there was a viable IFA available to the Appellant in Benin City. The RPD's findings relating to an IFA included that the Appellant had not established that there was a serious possibility of persecution in Benin City as there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Fulani Herdsmen had the motive or capability to locate or target the Appellant in the IFA; that there insufficient evidence of future risk due to his abduction experience, and there was insufficient evidence of persecution in the IFA due to his opposition to FGM, and that the IFA was reasonable given the Appellant's particular circumstances. The RPD also incorporated into its IFA analysis the Jurisprudential Guide (JG)7 relating to the viability of IFA in Nigeria. Grounds of Appeal [11] In brief, the Appellant's submits that the RPD erred in its IFA analysis by failing to find a forward looking risk in the IFA due to the Appellant's previous abduction experience, failing to recognize the fact that the ransom was only partially paid and this indicates that the Appellant still faces danger, and ignoring evidence that the Appellant's wife has been forced to relocate within Nigeria to avoid the threat of FGM against the Appellant's daughter. It is also argued that the RPD failed to conduct a proper assessment of the hardships which would arise in the IFA due to the Appellant's separation from his family who would continue to have to move around to avoid FGM, his abandonment of his profession due to inability to travel the country would be like losing part of his identity, and the trauma he would be subjected to if forced to return to an IFA which is near the scene of his previous abduction. ANALYSIS [12] Having conducted an independent assessment of the evidence, the RAD finds that the determinative issue is that of an IFA and this will be the primary focus of this decision. Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) Test for IFA [13] The test to apply in order to determine whether a viable IFA exists is two-pronged: (i) there is no serious possibility of the claimants being persecuted or subjected, on a balance of probabilities, to a danger of torture or to a risk to their life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFA area, and (ii) conditions in the IFA area must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimants, for the claimants to seek refuge there.8 The threshold is very high for the unreasonableness test.9 [14] IFA in Nigeria is often considered by the RPD and RAD. The relevant country documentation and jurisprudence demonstrates that internal relocation in Nigeria is generally considered to be viable for refugee claimants and appellants fearing non-state actors. Pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the IRPA, the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board has identified a RAD decision10 (IFA Jurisprudential Guide) as a jurisprudential guide which addresses internal flight alternatives in major cities in south and central Nigeria for claimants fleeing non-state actors. [15] Given that the Appellant fears non-state actors, the RAD in this case will note where this guide has been adopted. Although all appeals are decided on their particular facts, the Federal Court has upheld determinative findings of viable IFAs in Nigeria in cases with similar circumstances as the Appellant where, for example, the alleged fear is related to FGM (or the refusal to submit one's child to FGM),11 forced participation in rituals,12 and kidnappers.13 First prong of the IFA test: Risk of persecution or s. 97 harm in the IFA location [16] In order to assess whether the Appellant would face a risk to life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, a risk of torture, or a serious possibility of persecution in Benin City in relation to the Fulani Herdsmen, Boko Haram, Niger Delta Militants or family members due to his opposition to FGM and fear of forced FGM of his daughter, the RAD has considered whether the evidence indicates that these multiple agents of persecution and harm have the motivation and means to pursue him in Benin City. [17] For the reasons that follow, the RAD finds that the Appellant has not shown that there is serious possibility that the Fulani Herdsmen or Boko Haram, Niger Delta Militants or family members would have the motivation to pursue him to Benin City. [18] Who are the agents of persecution? The Appellant submits that there are four agents of persecution and harm feared: Fulani Herdsmen and Boko Haram, Niger Delta Militants and family members. Fulani Herdsmen and Boko Haram [19] Is there evidence that the Fulani Herdsmen and Boko Haram are motivated to search for the Appellant in Benin City? While the agents of persecution may have had an interest in the Appellant in his home region, this analysis should focus on whether the agents of persecution have the motivation to pursue the Appellant to the IFA location identified. [20] The RAD does not have any persuasive or credible evidence that would establish this on a balance of probabilities. All of the incidents took place in Plateau State. There is no evidence that the Fulani Herdsmen or Boko Haram have been motivated to track the Appellant elsewhere in Nigeria, for example through his immediate or extended family who continue to reside there. [21] Furthermore, the objective documentary evidence indicates that the Fulani Herdsmen lack a presence and do not have an apparent desire to exert authority in Edo State where the IFA of Benin City is located. The Fulani Herdsmen are nomadic Herdsmen who reside in the Southern and Central part of Nigeria,14 primarily in what is referred to as the country's Middle Belt15 and the Fulani Herdsmen are usually focused on accessing land for their cattle.16 Such Herdsmen have become renowned for violent clashes with locals, clashes which are reportedly driven by "the real or perceived need to protect themselves or their livelihoods."17 [22] The reports of violence by this group are limited to the Middle Belt states in Nigeria and there is limited evidence of Fulani Herdsmen attacks in Edo State and in Benin City. For example, the Amnesty International report on file The Harvest of Death: Three Years of Bloody Clashes Between Farmers and Herders in Nigeria includes a map of where these types of attacks have occurred; it indicates that there have been nine deaths in Edo State attributed to such attacks over the period January 2016 to October 2018, compared to 492 in Plateau State where the Appellant was residing when the attacks occurred.18 [23] Is there evidence that the Fulani Herdsmen and Boko Haram have a continuing interest in the Appellant? The Appellant submitted in evidence a police report naming the Herdsmen and points to this as the reason why they are motivated to search for him. More than a year and a half has passed since the incidents that the Appellant has detailed in his narrative and his report to the police. The Appellant has not reported any continued interest from the Fulani Herdsmen and Boko Haram over this period. [24] A refugee assessment is forward-looking. Assessing the above factors cumulatively, the RAD finds that the Appellant has not established that there is a serious possibility that the agents of persecution are sufficiently motivated to locate him in Benin City. Whether the Herdsmen and Boko Haram the Means to Locate the Appellant [25] The Appellant believes that he is danger as noted in his Basis of Claim (BOC)19 Form: "I am in danger and targeted as an obstacle to the herdsmen and related groups spread across the country and have no safe place to return and live a free and fulfilled life."20 [26] The RAD finds that even if the Herdsmen and Boko Haram were motivated to locate the Appellant, the RAD agrees with the RPD that there is insufficient evidence that they are sufficiently organized, powerful or have the means to find and harm their enemies in a large urban area which is located far away from the conflict. [27] The onus is on the Appellant to show that he has does not have an IFA. Given that he has provided no detail about any mechanisms through which the agents of persecution would be able to search for him, beyond asserting that they are "spread across the country", the RAD finds that the Appellant has not offered sufficient persuasive evidence to show that there is a serious possibility of them being persecuted or harmed in the IFA location identified. [28] Further, the RAD prefers the objective evidence which indicates that these agents of persecution generally are not able to track individuals who move to other areas of Nigeria. Neither the Fulani Herdsmen nor the Boko Haram has the capacity to track "average citizens" like this Appellant. For example, the Response to Information Request (RIR) at Item 7.26 of the National Documentation Packages (NDP), The capacity of Boko Haram to pursue individuals who relocate to another region or city, such as Lagos, notes that Boko Haram is primarily active in northern Nigeria. It discusses the organization's structure, describing it as "a complex of factions, cells and groups that owe limited allegiance to [the organization's titular head] Abubkar Shekau and his core group of followers." The RIR quotes an expert on Boko Haram who states that "the ability of Boko Haram to track down an 'average citizen,' such as someone who fled one of the cities that Boko Haram captured in 2014 or 2015, is 'doubtful'."21 The source noted that Boko Haram's ability to pursue an individual diminishes as one moves away from their home base in the northeast of Nigeria and that they are most likely to track and target relatively high-status individuals, such as local government area officials. The Research Director quoted in the RIR said that she was not aware of any targeted attacks by Boko Haram on individuals in the south of Nigeria, and that "there have been 'very few attacks in general' by Boko Haram south of the Middle Belt states".22 [29] While the Appellant fears that he will be harmed by the agents of persecution, principally Boko Haram and the Fulani Herdsman, should he return to Benin City, such fears have no objective basis as the Appellant has not established that there is a serious possibility of the agents of persecution having the sufficient motivation and/or means to locate and harm him in Benin City. In fact, as reviewed in the country conditions information above, the state where the IFA is located is among the safest in terms of attacks from Boko Haram and the Fulani Herdsman. Delta Niger Militants: Motive and Means to Persecute and Harm the Appellant [30] On appeal, the Appellant contests the finding of the RPD that the Appellant did not face a forward looking risk in the IFA as a result of his kidnapping experience and that it erred when it found that there was no credible evidence that the Appellant faces a forward looking risk in the IFA due to his kidnapping which was located close to the IFA. The Appellant argues that only XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX naira of the XXXX XXXX requested was paid and there is nothing to suggest that the kidnappers have forgotten about the money they wanted to receive. Further, the Appellant notes that his cousin left the country after the kidnapping as he felt his own life was not safe. [31] First, the RAD disagrees with the Appellant's submission that the Appellant's kidnapping was near the IFA location.23 The Appellant in his BOC reports the location of his kidnapping for ransom to be close to Warri in Delta State24 which would be consistent with where the Delta Niger Militants are known to operate. Benin City is located in Edo State which is in Southern Nigeria. Warri is in Delta State which is located 97 km away from Benin City and is an almost two hour drive from Benin City. [32] The objective documentary evidence does not support, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant is at risk for kidnapping at the hands of the Delta Niger Militants. The Delta Niger Militants, the group who the Appellant reports to have kidnapped him for ransom, are not present in any significant way in Benin City which is in Edo State. NDP documentation indicates that the Delta Niger Militant groups mainly operate in Delta State, as well as elsewhere in the Niger Delta region, including Bayelsa and Rivers States.25 Their base camp is also believed to be in Delta State. [33] Further, according to the NDP, the Delta Niger Militants are primarily focusing on targeting oil facilities and not people. The NDP also indicates that according to posts on the Niger Delta Avengers (NDA) website, the NDA has rejected kidnappings as a modus operandi.26 [34] The RAD acknowledges that the objective evidence shows that kidnappings and robberies are a problem throughout Nigeria and this is a generalized risk that all Nigerian citizens face. However, persons with particular profiles are at greater risk, such as high-profile foreign, Nigerian nationals, wealthy families, politicians, government officials, relatives of celebrities, businessmen, doctors, teachers, foreign residents and religious leaders.27 The Appellant does not meet any of these profiles. [35] The Appellant has not provided any evidence to support his assertion on appeal that the kidnappers are motivated to search for him to secure the remainder of the kidnapping ransom. He did not testify to ongoing threats or harassment at his RPD hearing, nor is there information in his BOC which indicates that the kidnappers have sought him in any way since the incident took place. The Appellant did not testify at his hearing to concerns that his previous kidnappers were motivated to harm him due to the ransom amount outstanding. The Appellant's testimony that his cousin left the country after the kidnapping as he felt his own life was not safe, is not sufficient evidence to establish that the Appellant is at continuing risk of persecution and harm in the IFA. There is no independent corroborative evidence to establish the reason for the cousin's departure from Nigeria. [36] Given the objective documentary evidence which indicates that the Appellant's profile is not one which the Delta Niger Militants would target for kidnapping, and in the absence of any evidence that these militants possess the reach, motivation and means to target him in the IFA, the RAD finds that the Appellant has not offered sufficient persuasive evidence to show that there is a serious possibility of them being persecuted or harmed in the IFA location identified by the Delta Niger Militants. [37] While the Appellant fears that he will be harmed by his previous abductors, such fears have no objective basis as the Appellant has not established that there is a serious possibility of the agents of persecution having the sufficient motivation and/or means to locate and harm him in Benin City. FGM of Appellant's Daughter [38] The RPD found that there was insufficient evidence of the Appellant's persecution in the IFA because of his opposition to FGM, that there was no evidence that he or his family had been harassed or threatened since they moved away from Lagos in 2017, and that while he may be ostracized by his family, he was unlikely to suffer undue hardship in Benin for opposition to FGM. The RPD also considered objective documentary evidence which indicated that the Appellant's opposition to FGM in Edo State, where the IFA of Benin City is located, was not unusual so he would not be a target. [39] The RPD agrees with the RPD's finding that there is no credible evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Appellant or his family have been persecuted, threatened or harmed by his family members, or that the feared family members have been able to locate them, since they moved from Lagos in 2017. Further, the Appellant testified that the circumcision was to be completed when the daughter turned three years of age and she is now over six. [40] On appeal, the Appellant submits that the RPD member ignored or overlooked evidence that that the wife of the Appellant was moving from place to place with their daughter to avoid FGM of the daughter. In the RAD's view the RPD considered the Appellant's relocation for reasons of FGM but ultimately found that the cumulative evidence did not establish his central allegation of persecution or harm due to his opposition to FGM in the IFA. [41] The RAD finds that it is mere speculation that the Appellant could be found in the IFA by the feared family members given that the Appellant has no known family or familial connections in Benin City. The RAD observes that Appellant's BOC does not list any family members or relatives in Benin City and the instructions clearly indicate "List your relatives, living or dead, use an additional sheet if you need more space". And further, the RAD observes that no evidence was adduced at the hearing or on appeal, as to how the feared family members would be able to locate the Appellant in the IFA upon his return to Nigeria. The feared family members are not state agents so they do not have access to any particular advantage which might assist them to locate the Appellant and his family. [42] The RAD agrees with the RPD that the Appellant has not met his burden of establishing that his opposition to FGM of his daughter would put him at serious risk of persecution or a likelihood of harm in the IFA. And, bolstering this finding is the objective documentary evidence regarding FGM in Nigeria and in the IFA to which the RAD assigns substantive weight. [43] The RAD considered that while FGM has clearly been practiced in Nigeria, that in 2015, the first federal law (Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act)28 was enacted in Nigeria attempting to prohibit FGM across the whole country. Edo State, where the IFA is located, is one of the states in Nigeria which has also passed this law.29 Further, Edo State, where the IFA of Benin City is located, enacted the "Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Law in 1999". According to another source, 13 states (mainly in South Nigeria where the IFA is located) had adopted anti-FGM legislation as of June 2018 with one of these states being Edo State where Benin City is located.30 There are also varying rates of FGM across Nigeria, with the documentary evidence indicating that Edo State is in the lower end of FGM prevalence rates in Nigeria.31 [44] The RAD also considered documentary evidence that it is more likely than not that Nigerian parents can refuse FGM.32 One source indicated that even in communities where FGM is prevalent, some parents refuse to have their daughter undergo FGM, especially educated parents.33 The documentary evidence also speaks against parents facing consequences for refusing to subject their female children to FGM such as retaliation, threats or coercion.34 There is also nothing in the documentary evidence that indicates the support of the Appellant's assertion that he would be harmed by family members in retaliation for not having his daughter circumcised,35 but rather consequences of refusal typically amount to limited public shaming or denial of communal benefits. [45] The finding that one can refuse FGM, along with the absence of objective documentary evidence that parents do not face persecution or harm if they refuse FGM, decreases further the likelihood that the Appellant, would face persecution or harm due to his opposition to FGM in the IFA location. [46] Overall, the evidence on the record is simply insufficient to support the Appellant's assertion that his family members would be able to find him in the IFA for purposes of persecuting or harming him due to his opposition of the family tradition of FGM. The RPD did not err in its analysis of the reasonableness of the proposed IFA [47] The RPD found that it was reasonable, in all of the circumstances particular to the Appellant, for him to relocate and live in Benin City. The RPD observed that the Appellant had an above average education, work experience and ability to converse in English. [48] The Appellant disputes the RPD's analysis of the second prong of the IFA test, noting that the RPD gave no consideration to the hardship which will be caused by the continuing trauma the Appellant will suffer given that his prior kidnapping experience was located near the IFA, that the Appellant will have to be separated from his wife given that she will have to flee to Northern Nigeria to avoid FGM of their daughter, and the Appellant will have to abandon his profession which is a component of his identity. This argument is considered later in these reasons. [49] As did the RPD, the RAD has also considered the reasoning in the Jurisprudential Guide TB7-19851 (JG)36 which concludes that, depending on a person's particular circumstances, several large cities in Nigeria, including Benin City, may provide an IFA for persons fleeing persecution at the hands of a non-state actor. The Appellant is fleeing persecution and harm by non-state actors. Thus, the RAD adopts the reasoning of the JG in the analysis of the second prong of the IFA test and finds that while there may be hardships in Lagos, it is not unreasonable for the Appellant to move there. [50] The RAD also observes that the current NDP for Nigeria provides information regarding the general viability of internal location. A 2016 document published by the United Kingdom (UK) Home office, which provides guidance to Home Office decision makers on handling particular types of persecution and human rights claims notes as follows: 2.4.8 In general, it will not be unduly harsh for a woman to internally relocate to escape localised threats from members of their family or other non-state actors, especially if single and without children to support, but the individual circumstances of each case will need to be taken into account.37 [51] The RAD concurs with the RPD that the Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that it is unreasonable for him to relocate to Benin City. Challenges that would be faced by other people, such as single women, are not an issue for the Appellant. The Appellant is well-educated, considered to be an expert in demand in his field and possessed an international visa which is evidence of some economic advantage. He quickly obtained professional employment in Canada. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that it is more likely than not that there are language barriers or any barriers for employment, religious expression, housing, indigeneship, or any other matters that pose a barrier to the Appellant to relocate to Benin City. The agents of persecution and harm are not state agents. While not determinative, consideration of the JG supports a finding that it is reasonable for the Appellant to relocate to Benin City. [52] The RAD has also considered the Appellant's argument concerning his prospect for employment in Nigeria and concern that he would not be able to travel throughout Nigeria to pursue his work. The Appellant is well-educated with 16 years of education, three of these at University and four more years of education at a trade school.38 He is an XXXX XXXX39 and testified to being sought after in Nigeria and an expert in his field. He is fluent in the English language as evidenced by the fact that he gave evidence in English at his hearing. None of these facts are contested on appeal and is relevant to the RAD's independent assessment of his prospect for employment in Nigeria, a country whose national language is English. [53] The fact that the Appellant may have to avoid high risk areas in Nigeria, and thus, may be restricted in what areas he travels for work purposes, is a reality that faces all Nigerians and does not represent an undue hardship to the Appellant given the significant employment and educational advantages he possesses over most. [54] While country evidence shows high levels of poverty to affect a large proportion of Nigeria's population, the RAD finds that given the work expertise and high educational level of the Appellant, it would not be unduly harsh to expect that they would be able to find employment in Benin City, even though the process of doing so might be challenging. [55] In respect of employment, the Appellant testified that he was able to maintain work even in the midst of being "on the run" from his agents of persecution via the telephone. The Appellant's Schedule A similarly reflects that he was employed throughout 2017 and 2018 while subject to adversity and relocations in Nigeria.40 He was also able to quickly find employment in Canada to the point where he testified to be able to support himself independently and had already travelled extensively throughout Canada for work purposes. This demonstrates the Appellant's resiliency and resourcefulness in securing employment arrangements in the midst of challenges and some adversity. [56] The Appellant is a member of Nigeria's Yoruba ethnic group, which according to the UK Home Office make up approximately 21 percent of Nigeria's population.41 This same report states that the Yoruba "have traditionally dominated [...] in the southwest" of Nigeria42 which happens to be the location of at least one of the prospective IFA locations, Benin City. In at least one IFA location, therefore, the Appellant as Yoruba would be a member of the dominant ethnic group, and less likely to experience discrimination on account of his ethno-linguistic identity. [57] Regarding the argument that the Appellant's continuing trauma should be a factor in assessing hardship in the IFA, the RAD agrees. However, the RAD disagrees with the Appellant's submission that the Appellant was kidnapped near the IFA location.43 As noted previously, the Appellant in his BOC reports the location of his kidnapping for ransom to be close to Warri in Delta State44 which would be consistent with where the Delta Niger Militants are known to operate. However, there is no documentary evidence to support a finding that the Delta Niger Militants are present in any significant way in Benin City, which is in Edo State in Southern Nigeria. Warri in Delta State is located 97 km away from Benin City and is an almost two hour drive. [58] The RAD also observes that in this case there is no psychological assessment or evidence to support a finding that this trauma would rise to such a level that the IFA would be unreasonable. Given that the Appellant is educated and employed, the RAD finds it was reasonably possible to obtain such evidence. There is no evidence that the Appellant has been receiving psychological therapy or intervention since coming to Canada and he has been productively employed shortly after his arrival. While this trauma would likely elevate upon his return to Nigeria, he will have the support of his wife and children upon his return. There is also evidence that there is some mental health care available in Nigeria, though it is not up to Canadian standards.45 The documentary evidence46 is that Nigeria does have mental health facilities and that in general, medical and mental health facilities are concentrated in the large cities, such as Lagos. [59] Based on the RAD's cumulative review of the evidence, it finds that it would not be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh to expect the Appellant to relocate to Benin City. [60] Given the finding that the Appellant has a viable IFA, his appeal must fail. CONCLUSION [61] The RAD has analyzed the record, listened to the audio recording and considered the Appellant's arguments. This independent analysis of the evidence reveals that the RPD did not err on the availability of an IFA and its decision is correct. The RPD conducted a clear and well-reasoned IFA analysis, and correctly concluded that a valid IFA exists given the facts and evidence of this case. [62] The RAD concludes that the Appellant has failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution, or that he could be personally subjected to a risk to life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or to a danger of torture, if he relocated to Benin City. [63] Moreover, the Appellant did not establish that it would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh for him to relocate to Benin City. This finding is determinative of the appeal. [64] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) "Kim Polowek" Kim Polowek August 30, 2019 Date 1 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 60-68. 4 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Parminder Singh, 2016 FCA 96. 5 Ibid., and Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 6 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (Huruglica). 7 X(Re), 2018 CanLII 52123. 8 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at 710. 9 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.) at paras 15-16, citing Thirunavukkarasu. 10 X (Re), 2018 CanLII 52123. 11 Dakpokpo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 580; Egbesola v. M.C.I., 2016 FC 204. See RAD decisions: X (Re), 2016 CanLII 105374 (CA IRB) and X (Re), 2015 CanLII 111326 (CA IRB). 12 Melford-Jowoh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 455. See RAD decision X (Re), 2016 CanLII 106181 (CA IRB). 13 Dibia v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2017 FC 1076. 14 National Documentation Package (NDP), Nigeria, 30 April 2019, tab 1.3: EASO COI Meeting Report: Nigeria. European Union. European Asylum Support Office. August 2017, page 22. 15 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019, tab 1.4: EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Nigeria. Country Focus. European Union. European Asylum Support Office. June 2017, page 22. 16 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019, tab 7.31: Fulani herdsmen, including motivations, modus operandi and recruitment methods; raids by Fulani herdsmen in schools in Benin City in October 2016 (2016-August 2018). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 10 August 2018. NGA106152.E, page 2. 17 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019, tab 7.31: Fulani herdsmen, including motivations, modus operandi and recruitment methods; raids by Fulani herdsmen in schools in Benin City in October 2016 (2016-August 2018). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 10 August 2018. NGA106152.E, page 3. 18 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019, tab 7.30: The Harvest of Death: Three Years of Bloody Clashes Between Farmers and Herders in Nigeria. Amnesty International. 17 December 2018. AFR 44/9503/2018, page 5. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Appellant's BOC, pages 11-45. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record at page 44. Appellant's BOC at page 5 of narrative. 21 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019, tab 7.26: The capacity of Boko Haram to pursue individuals who relocate to another region or city, such as Lagos (2013-March 2016). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. March 11, 2016. NGA105451.E. 22 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019, tab 7.26: The capacity of Boko Haram to pursue individuals who relocate to another region or city, such as Lagos (2013-March 2016). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. March 11, 2016. NGA105451.E. 23 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record at page 14, para 27. 24 Exhibit RPDR-1, RPD record at page 27. Appellant's BOC. 25 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 7.25 26 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 7.25. 27 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 7.3, IRB Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA104917.E, Kidnapping for ransom, including frequency, profile of victims and kidnappers; response by authorities (2013-July 2014). This item also was in NDP package of July 10, 2018. 28 Nigeria: Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, 2015 (VAPP) [Nigeria], 25 May 2015, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/556d5eb14.html [accessed 26 July 2019]. 29 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 5.28. 30 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 5.12. 31 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 5.12. 32 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 5.12. 33 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 5.12. 34 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 5.12. 35 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 5.12. 36 X(Re), 2018 CanLII 52123. 37 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 1.11 at page 7. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record at page 57. Appellant's Schedule A at page 2. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record at page 57. Appellant's Schedule A at page 2. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record at page 57. Appellant's Schedule A at page 2. 41 NPD for Nigeria, April 30, 2019, Item 1.7, p. 8 at para. 6.2.3. 42 NPD for Nigeria, April 30, 2019, Item 1.7, p. 8 at para. 6.2.3. 43 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record at page 14, para 27. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record at page 43. Appellant's BOC. 45 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 1.9. 46 NDP for Nigeria, April 30, 2019 at Item 1.9. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-02273 20 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