TB9-07055

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-07055 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 December 16, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Caitlin Maxwell Tribunal Counsel for the person who is|are the subject of the appeal Mary E Boyce Barrister & Solicitor Conseil de la|des personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] These are my reasons for dismissing the appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX ("the Appellant"). The Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") upholds the determination of the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [2] The Appellant, a citizen of Nigeria, claims a fear of persecution at the hands of Fulani herdsmen.1 The Appellant's XXXX outside of XXXX was overtaken by the herdsmen's cattle, and two of his XXXX XXXX. They are believed to have been XXXX by the herdsmen.2 The Appellant fled and reported the incident to police; however, he was later attacked by masked men he believed to be herdsmen.3 He believes the herdsmen continue to seek revenge against him because his employees harmed their cattle. He also believes some of the cattle may have died because of their exposure to chemicals on his farm.4 The Appellant's wife, who XXXX at a XXXX XXXX XXXX and has resided there since the attack, has not had any further problems with the herdsmen, nor have the Appellant's adult children, who reside in different cities.5 [3] The RPD determined the Appellant was not a credible witness, citing perceived discrepancies in his evidence. The panel also determined that the Appellant could safely relocate to Lagos. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the RPD's credibility determination and continues to submit he is at risk in Lagos. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [4] Generally, I must review a decision of the RPD on a standard of correctness.6 The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of oral testimony, which may attract deference in particular cases.7 In this case, however, the RPD had no advantage. I have therefore considered whether its decision was correct. [5] The Appellant has not submitted any new evidence in support of his appeal, nor has he requested an oral hearing. ANALYSIS Internal flight alternative determinative of appeal [6] I agree with the Appellant that the RPD was overly microscopic in its credibility assessment. I accept that he has established his allegations, on a balance of probabilities. However, I agree with the panel that the Appellant has a viable internal flight alternative ("IFA") in Lagos. The availability of an IFA is determinative of this appeal. Appellant has not pointed to any errors in RPD's analysis [7] On appeal, the Appellant has not pointed to any errors in the RPD's IFA analysis. However, he reasserts that he does not believe he will be safe in Lagos. He has not challenged the RPD's finding on the second prong, or alleged it would be unreasonable for him to relocate in his particular circumstances.8 Reach of agents of persecution not established [8] The Appellant has not established that he faces a serious possibility of persecution or that he would, on a balance of probabilities, be subjected to a risk to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFA of Lagos.9 He testified at the hearing that he received a phone call from the local chief warning him it was not safe to return as the herdsmen were still looking for him;10 however, apart from his assertion that the herdsmen are well-connected and bent on revenge,11 the Appellant has not pointed to any evidence to demonstrate how they would locate him in Lagos. [9] In Kassim, the Federal Court found that a claimant's belief that their agent of harm is powerful does not establish such an allegation on a balance of probabilities.12 A finding that there is a lack of evidence establishing an agent of harm's influence and connections does not represent an adverse credibility determination or offend the principle that it is an error to reject a claim because of a lack of corroborative evidence in the absence of a reason to doubt the claimant's credibility.13 A focus on the profile of the agents of persecution is supported by the jurisprudence.14 [10] The Appellant has not established that his agents of persecution have the means and motivation to locate him in Lagos, such that he would face a serious possibility of persecution, or a personal risk to life, risk of torture, or risk of cruel and unusual punishment or treatment, on a balance of probabilities. Reasonableness of IFA not challenged on appeal [11] Nor has the Appellant met his onus to demonstrate that the proposed IFA would be unreasonable or unduly harsh in his circumstances.15 The threshold to find an IFA objectively unreasonable is very high and requires, at a minimum, concrete evidence of adverse conditions which would jeopardize the Appellant's life and safety.16 In this case, the Appellant has not challenged the RPD's finding that it would be reasonable for him to relocate.17 In the absence of any submissions, I see no reason to depart from the RPD's conclusion.18 CONCLUSION [12] For the reasons set out above, 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) "Caitlin Maxwell" Caitlin Maxwell December 16, 2020 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Basis of Claim ("BOC") Narrative, pp. 21-22. 2 Exhibit RAD-1, Transcript of RPD hearing, pp. 20-21. 3 Ibid., p. 22. 4 Exhibit RAD-1, Transcript of RPD hearing, p. 26. 5 Exhibit RAD-1, Transcript of RPD hearing, p. 4. 6 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, at para. 103. 7 Ibid., at para. 70. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Counsel's memorandum, p. 23, para. 25. 9 Rasaratnam v Canada (MEI), [1991] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.) [Rasaratnam]. 10 Exhibit RAD-1, Transcript of RPD hearing, p. 29. 11 Ibid., pp. 25, 27; see also, Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Counsel's memorandum, p. 23, para. 25. 12 Kassim v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 621, at para. 22. 13 Ibid. 14 Mayorga v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 987, at para. 31; Nimako v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 540, at para. 7; Gonzalez Martinez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 5, at para. 11. 15 Rasaratnam, supra note 9. 16 Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 988, at para. 40, citing Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (FCA), 11 Imm LR (3d) 142 at para. 15. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Counsel's memorandum, p. 23, para. 25. 18 Refugee Appeal Division Rules (SOR/2012-257), s. 3(3)(g) requires Appellants to include full and detailed submissions in their memorandum regarding how the RPD erred, and specifically where the RPD erred in its decision; see also, Liu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 736, at para. 25; Yimer v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1335, at para. 16; Dakpokpo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 580, at para. 14. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-07055 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