TB6-08204

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 No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-08204 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, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision October 5, 2016 Date de la décision Panel L. Favreau Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Solomon Orjiwuru Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Appellant"), a citizen of Nigeria, appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He has tendered new evidence in this appeal, and requests an oral hearing. The Appellant asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision and substitute a determination that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellant asks that RAD refer his claim back to the RPD for redetermination. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. His appeal is denied. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he was persecuted in Nigeria because of his religion, and fears harm at the hands of his extended family and the police. He alleged that he converted from Islam to the Christian faith and that his Muslim extended family does not approve of his new faith, in particular, his uncle, who is an Imam leader at a mosque. He alleges that his uncle paid six police officers to kidnap and detain him under false allegations of having ties to Boko Haram. He was able to bribe his way out of detention and make his way to Canada. [4] The Appellant's refugee claim was heard on May 4, 2016. In a decision of June 2, 2016, the RPD rejected the Appellant's claim finding that he was not credible on the central elements of his claim and that he has an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port Harcourt. [5] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in both its credibility findings and in its IFA analysis. [6] The RAD finds that the determinative issue in this appeal is IFA. ROLE OF THE RAD [7] The RAD finds that the Federal Court of Appeal decision, in Huruglica,1 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by a specialized tribunal, such as the RAD, to decisions of a first-level administrative tribunal. [8] The RAD concludes from its statutory analysis that, with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law), the RAD is to review the RPD's decisions applying the correctness standard. Thus, after carefully considering the RPD's decision, the RAD carries out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [9] As provided for in s. 110(3) of the IRPA, with certain exceptions, the RAD must proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the RPD and may accept documentary evidence and written submissions from the Minister and refugee claimant. Section 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [10] The Appellant has submitted the documents as proposed new evidence in this appeal: 1. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX boarding passes in the name of the Appellant and his son, dated XXXX XXXX 2014, together with copies of selected pages of his passport;2 2. Four online articles including the Vanguard newspaper: "8 Killed as blood flows in Rivers, Bayelsa again", dated May 11, 2016; Release International articles, "Nigeria-Threat to Christians Extends to South", September 3, 2015, and "Nigeria - Christian Farmers Massacred", March 15, 2016; and CP World, "Gang Kills Pastor in Nigeria for Preaching about Jesus", April 12, 2016.3 [11] The Appellant submits that all of this evidence meets the statutory requirements to be admitted as evidence in this appeal because they were not readily available to the Appellant or he could not reasonably have been expected to have tendered them. The Appellant also submits that the proposed new evidence meets the test for new evidence as set out in Raza.4 [12] The RAD's analysis of the admissibility of the proposed new evidence must begin first with the test set out in s. 110(4). The RAD agrees with the Appellant that further analysis of the evidence is required before the RAD can accept the proposed new evidence. In this regard, the RAD is guided by the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Singh.5 [13] In assessing whether the proposed new evidence meets the statutory provisions of s. 110(4), the RAD considered the following: (a) First, did the evidence arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim? Here, the RAD may consider whether the evidence is capable of proving the current state of affairs in the country of feared persecution, or an event that occurred or a circumstance that arose after the rejection of the refugee claim.6 (b) The RAD will consider not only the date on which the document came into existence, but the timing of the event or circumstance which the document seeks to prove.7 For example, an affidavit or newspaper article may have been created after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, but the information in the document may be several years old, and the RAD may therefore find that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the claim, despite the date of the document. (c) It is important to note here that s. 110(4) does not contemplate whether the evidence arose after the RPD hearing, but rather after the rejection of the Appellant's claim. Where a document arose after the hearing but before the rejection of the refugee claim, it is necessary for the RAD to consider whether the Appellant could have presented the document to the RPD by way of a post-hearing submission. (d) If the evidence is capable of proving an event that occurred or circumstances that arose after the RPD hearing, then the evidence must be considered, and the RAD will proceed to assess the credibility, relevance, and materiality of the document.8 (e) Second, if the RAD finds that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, it must consider the next factor in s. 110(4). If the evidence is capable of proving only an event that occurred or circumstances that arose prior to the rejection, has the Appellant established that the evidence was not reasonably available for presentation to the RPD before it rejected the claim,9 or that it proves a fact that was unknown to him at the time of the hearing?10 If so, the RAD will proceed to assess the newness, credibility and relevance of the evidence. (f) Third, if the RAD finds that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, and that it was reasonably available at the time of the rejection, it must consider the final part of the s. 110(4) test: could the Appellant reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the evidence prior to the rejection of the refugee claim? If so, the evidence need not be considered.11 If the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to present the evidence to the RPD, the RAD will proceed to assess the newness, credibility, and relevance of the evidence. (g) If the proposed new evidence meets the tests set out in the statutory requirements and in Raza,12 the evidence will be admitted as evidence in the appeal. The materiality of the evidence will be considered in the context of the assessment made under section 110(6) of the IRPA. [14] The RAD finds that item 1, the XXXX boarding passes and accompanying pages, cannot be admitted as evidence in this appeal. The RAD finds that this evidence was available prior to the rejection of the Appellant's appeal, and he has not demonstrated why he has not reasonably presented the evidence. The RAD notes the issue of the absence of evidence to establish that the Appellant was in France, which was raised at the RPD hearing by the RPD. While the Appellant argues that he believed his explanation assuaged the concerns of the RPD, the RAD finds there is nothing in the record which indicates that the RPD was no longer concerned about the absence of that evidence. The Appellant has not demonstrated why he was not able to tender this evidence prior to the rejection of his claim. [15] In addition, the RAD finds that the XXXX boarding passes and accompanying pages of the Appellant's passport are relevant to the issue of credibility only. The RAD has found that the determinative issue in this appeal is IFA and, given the credibility finding in question is not relevant to the issue of IFA, the RAD finds that the proposed new evidence is not relevant to this appeal. [16] Although the Appellant submits that most of the articles were not in existence at the time of the RPD hearing, the RAD is not persuaded. The RAD notes that all but one of the documents pre-dates the RPD hearing (the RAD notes that the Appellant misstates that one of the articles is dated September 3, 2016, and it actually is dated September 3, 2015). The one document which post-dates the hearing is dated May 15, 2016. While it post-dates the RPD hearing, the Appellant has not explained why this document or any of the other documents could not have been tendered as post-hearing evidence prior to the rejection of his claim on June 2, 2016. [17] The RAD finds that the Appellant bears the burden of establishing how the new evidence meets the statutory requirements of the Act but has not done so. Accordingly, these documents are not admitted as new evidence in this appeal. Oral Hearing [18] Section 110(3) of the IRPA requires that the RAD proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the RPD's record, while allowing the RAD to accept documentary evidence and submissions from the Minister and the Appellant. According to Section 110(6), the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, that is central to the decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. When read together, Sections 110(3), (4), and (6) establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this unless there is new evidence (i.e., evidence admitted under section 110(4), section 110(5) or Minister's evidence), in which case, the RAD may hold a hearing if that new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. The RAD finds that, given there was no new evidence that has been admitted in this appeal, it cannot hold a hearing. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM Internal Flight Alternative [19] In the pleadings, the Appellants argue that the RPD erred in its assessment of both the accessibility and reasonableness of the proposed IFA. The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. The RAD finds, after its own review and assessment of the evidence in the record, that it concurs with the RPD's finding that there is a viable internal flight alternative available to the Appellant in Abuja in Nigeria. [20] In assessing an IFA, the RPD must apply a two-pronged test cited in Rasaratnam13 suitably modified to take account of section 97 of the IRPA. 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 a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a 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. [21] Both prongs must be satisfied to find that the Appellant has an IFA. The burden of proof rests with the Appellant to show that he does not have an IFA. The finding of an IFA must be based on a distinct evaluation of a region for that purpose, taking into account the Appellant's identity. An IFA must be a realistic and attainable option. An Appellant cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or to undergo undue hardship in traveling there or staying there.14 [22] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred in its assessment of the first prong. He argues that he provided sufficient evidence to establish that his uncle, who is the primary agent of persecution, is an influential Muslim cleric in his community and a man of means who is willing to pay bribes to the police to get them to do his bidding. [23] He further argues that the agents of persecution extend to his entire extended family. [24] The RAD has considered the profile and influence of the agents of persecution which include the male Appellant's uncle and those assisting him in relation to the IFA in Port Harcourt. As noted by the RPD, the Appellant made repeated references to his uncle's power and influence as an Imam in XXXX throughout the hearing and in his narrative. He testified that his uncle is a well-respected scholar and a leader in many aspects of the Islamic community. However, despite the alleged profile of the agent of persecution, the RAD notes that the Appellant was not able to tender any objective documentary evidence to support his allegation that his uncle is a respected Islamic scholar with a high profile in the community. The RPD drew an adverse credibility finding with respect to his failure to tender evidence in this regard. The RAD notes that the Appellant does not challenge this finding of the RPD. [25] However, the Appellant does argue that the RPD failed to consider the evidence in his BoC that the reason he was arrested by the police was that his uncle bribed the police. He further argues that his uncle was able to influence the police with a bribe because he is a "man of means". [26] The RAD is not persuaded by this argument. As noted by the RPD, the Appellant testified that his uncle is the main agent of his persecution, and he fears his uncle because of the influence he has in the community. The Appellant testified that his uncle has influence over police officers because he has the means to call on anyone because of his level of respect in the community. [27] The RAD also notes that there was insufficient evidence before the RPD and none before the RAD that establishes the profile of the uncle which includes, as the Appellant argues in his memorandum, "a man of means". The Appellant argues that his "means" come from his status as an influential Imam; however, the RAD finds that he has not established that his uncle holds the profile he alleges. The RAD agrees with the RPD that it is reasonable to expect that, if the Appellant's uncle held such an influential position in the Muslim community in XXXX, there would be some documentary evidence of his activities in that role. The RAD finds that the profile of the agent of persecution is central to his allegations of persecution and central to his argument that his uncle's influence extends beyond XXXX. As such, the RAD finds it is reasonable to expect the Appellant to have tendered such evidence. The Appellant stated that the uncle is well respected in his community; however, there is no evidence that his influence extends beyond XXXX. His failure to tender any such evidence undermines his allegation that his uncle holds the profile he has alleged and undermines his allegations that his uncle can influence the police outside of XXXX. [28] After its own review and assessment of the evidence, the RAD notes that the only evidence in the record concerning the profile and influence of the uncle came directly from the Appellant despite tendering numerous affidavits from friends, co-workers and family. The RAD notes that the personal documentary evidence tendered by the Appellants does not offer any evidence of the extent of the Appellant's uncle's alleged influence and status in the community. The RAD finds that the lack of evidence in this regard undermines the Appellant's allegation that he was arrested by the police because of the influence and power of his uncle who is an Imam. [29] The RAD notes that, while the documentary evidence in the record indicates that the police in Nigeria are corrupt, insufficient evidence was tendered that the agents of persecution influenced the police actions in XXXX and have the power to influence police in Port Harcourt. The RAD also notes that there is no persuasive evidence in the record which suggests that the agents of persecution have the ability to influence the police actions in Nigeria and/or have the ability to access resources of police or any other authorities in order to locate the Appellant, if he were to move elsewhere in Nigeria, a country of 170 million people. [30] The Appellant has alleged that the police kidnapped him for money and that he was ultimately released after he paid a bribe. The RAD finds that the Appellant's allegations are consistent with corrupt actions of a group of police officers. The RAD notes that the Appellant has alleged that six police officers were involved in all aspects of his alleged kidnapping and assault. The RAD finds there is insufficient evidence which establishes that the police interest in the Appellant goes beyond XXXX. [31] The RAD notes, however, that the Appellant has tendered documentary evidence of a Police Extract Incident Report,15 which is alleged to have been sent from the Department of State Services at XXXX XXXX located in XXXX. The report states that the Appellant is wanted for sponsoring the radical Islamic group, Boko Haram; police are searching for him to re-arrest him. [32] The RAD finds, however, that little weight can be given to this police report because it is inconsistent with the appearance of police reports in Nigeria and inconsistent with the examples provided in the documentary evidence. The documentary evidence states: A representative of the police force's Special Fraud Unit indicated in correspondence to the Research Directorate via the High Commission of Canada in Nigeria, that the appearance of police reports varies (Nigeria 26 Feb. 2012). A solicitor and advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria told the Research Directorate in a telephone interview that the "character" of police reports is consistent among the country's larger police stations or units (Solicitor 22 Feb. 2012). However, he also said that, in his experience, a police report issued by a smaller station or unit only bears the stamp of the issuing office in ink and not the "typical" features of a police report (ibid.). According to what a Public Affairs and Communication director at the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), in Nigeria, said in a telephone interview with the Research Directorate, the appearance of police reports differs depending on whether they are issued from police headquarters or one of the zonal or state commands (NHRC 3 Feb. 2012). An assistant force public relations officer (AFPRO) working for an annex of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Secretariat, which receives complaints about the police, wrote in correspondence with the Research Directorate that police reports may originate either at the IGP office or from the office of "his official delegate" (Nigeria 28 Jan. 2012). He added that although the format of police reports remains the same, the "caption or theme" varies depending on the incident being reported (ibid.).16 [33] The RAD finds that the report was issued by the national headquarters. Given that the objective evidence states that the character of police reports is consistent among the country's larger police stations, the RAD finds it is reasonable to expect that the police reports issued from police XXXX in XXXX would be consistent with a typical police report in the country. [34] The RAD also finds, after its own review and assessment of the evidence, that the objective evidence also states: ... two police force representatives, as well as a police spokesperson in Kano, indicated that the police logo displayed on police reports is the same across the country and does not vary (Nigeria 20 Feb. 2012; ibid. 28 Jan. 2012; ibid. 26 Feb. 2012). The AFPRO said that all police correspondence must be on letterhead bearing the police logo (ibid. 28 Jan. 2012). The Special Fraud Unit representative stated that the police report is "usually issued on ...police letterhead" and that "the police logo ... is usually on the letterhead nation-wide" (ibid. 26 Feb. 2012).17 [35] The RAD finds that the police report tendered by the Appellant is inconsistent with the example provided in the documentary evidence. Given the preponderance of evidence on this issue, it is reasonable to expect that the police report would bear the features of a typical police report in Nigeria. [36] The RAD further notes that the documentary evidence cites widespread document fraud in Nigeria and those fraudulent documents from Nigeria are available in and outside of Nigeria.18 The documentation states that any printed document can be forged. Genuine official documents such as birth, marriage, divorce, death certificates, ID cards, driving licences and passports can be obtained. The documentation also states that the information contained in genuine official documents is often false, inaccurate or cannot be relied upon. [37] Given the foregoing, the RAD can give little weight to this document in establishing that the police will search for the Appellant outside of XXXX. [38] The RAD finds that the Appellant has not adduced sufficient evidence to establish the influence and resources of the uncle and those that might help him. Given the lack of evidence presented in this regard, the RAD finds that the risk faced by the Appellant was local in nature. The RAD again notes that the Appellant has not provided any persuasive evidence to establish that his persecutors have the means or ability to overcome the difficulties they would face in attempting to locate him elsewhere in the country. The RAD notes that the Appellant does not have a high profile in Nigeria. [39] The RAD considered the RPD's findings with regard to the reasonableness of the IFA in Port Harcourt. The test for reasonableness is whether it would be unduly harsh to expect the Appellant to move to another, less hostile part of the country before seeking status abroad, as per Thirunavukkarasu.19 This requires an evaluation of the conditions in the IFA as well as the Appellants or similarly situated persons. [40] Thirunavukkarasu sets a very high threshold for what makes an IFA unreasonable in all the circumstances. The hardship associated with dislocation and relocation is not the kind of undue hardship that renders an IFA unreasonable.20 However, it is not enough for the Appellant to say that he or she does not like the weather there, or that he or she has no friends or relatives there, or that he or she may not be able to find suitable work there.21 [41] The Appellant argues that because he is a Yourba from the south-west part of Nigeria and, given the issues of ethnicity and tribal discrimination, he would suffer hardship in having to secure employment and in terms of cultural practices, and he argues that the inability to speak the local language can be a source of discrimination in securing accommodation and employment. [42] The RAD finds that, in the documentary evidence, the record establishes that Nigerians have the right to reside in any part of the country.22 While the evidence also states that citizens can experience frequent ethnic discrimination if they live in areas where they are an ethnic minority or where their ethnic group is not considered indigenous, the RAD notes that evidence also states that indigeneship status is less important in big cities such as Lagos, Abuja and Port Harcourt than it is in other places in terms of access to public jobs or ownership of land because the indigene population in these areas has been overwhelmed by migrants to the cities. Persons can generally find work where there is a demand for it. [43] When the Appellant was asked by the RPD why he could not relocate to Port Harcourt, his concerns focused on his career as an XXXX. He testified that he might be asked to take on a project in XXXX and, if he turned it down, it would prevent him from advancing his career. The RAD finds that the Appellant's concern is based on speculation. There is insufficient evidence before the RAD that turning down an XXXX project in XXXX would adversely affect his long-term career advancement. In any event, the RAD finds this concern does not meet the threshold that would render the IFA unreasonable. [44] Under questioning from his counsel, the Appellant testified that he might experience some difficulties with regard to the culture and language differences in Port Harcourt. As noted by the RPD, the Appellant was unable to specify which language would give him difficulty or why exactly he would not be able to fit in with the culture. The RAD notes that Nigeria is an extremely ethnically and linguistically diverse country.23 Although the documentary evidence does suggest that citizens who relocate to other parts of Nigeria can experience ethnic discrimination if their ethnic group is not "indigenous" to that particular area.24 However, the documentary evidence also states that indigenousness status is reported to be less important in major cities including Port Harcourt, particularly in terms of gaining access to public jobs or ownership of land. This is due to the overwhelming number of migrants coming to major urban cities like Port Harcourt.25 [45] The documentary evidence also indicates that while the indigenes of the Niger Delta, including in Port Harcourt, have been demanding a greater allocation of jobs in the region's oil industry, and non-indigenes have faced discrimination in politics, it is reported that in other industries, non-indigenes can generally find work where there is a demand for it.26 [46] In light of the documentary evidence, the RAD finds that the Appellant, although not indigenous to the area of Port Harcourt, as an XXXX and an educated male, he should be able to make a reasonable living if he were to relocate there. [47] As noted by the RPD, while there are approximately 400 different languages spoken in Nigeria, English remains the official language of Nigeria.27 According to the Appellant's BoC, he speaks both English and Yoruba. The objective evidence in the record establishes that English is spoken in Port Harcourt.28 The documentary evidence also indicates that it is mandatory in Nigerian schools to teach English alongside one other traditional language, generally Yoruba, Hausa or Igbo.29 Therefore, in a major city like Port Harcourt with a population of 2.343 million,30 it is reasonable to believe that the official language of Nigeria would be widely spoken enough that the Appellant would be able to communicate in that city. [48] The RAD is aware that the fact that an individual has to remain in hiding to avoid problems is not evidence of an IFA,31 and large urban areas cannot be assumed to be an IFA by virtue of their population size alone.32 The RPD's finding of an IFA in Port Harcourt was not totally dependent on the size of the city. Based on an analysis of the totality of the evidence, the RAD finds that the Appellant has not provided sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence that he would have to live in hiding in Port Harcourt. [49] In addition, although most Nigerians depend upon their family, relying on immediate and extended family is not the only option. Many Nigerians try to establish other support networks that may complement or, in some cases, replace the extended family. Examples of such support networks are religious congregations, religious organizations, age grades/sets, political organizations, charities, secret societies and guilds. Many such organizations are expected to aid their members in ways that would be fairly unusual in a western context. The Appellant alleges that he is a Christian. [50] The RAD notes that country documents indicate that 50 percent of the population in Nigeria is Christian with the majority of them living in the south. The RAD is satisfied that the Appellant will have sources of moral and spiritual assistance as well as practical support available to him to re-establish himself and his family in Port Harcourt. The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that it is not unreasonable for the Appellant to relocate to Port Harcourt. Having conducted the two-pronged test for an IFA, the RAD concludes, on a balance of probabilities, that a viable internal flight alternative would exist for the Appellant in Port Harcourt. Residual Profile [51] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by failing to consider his identity as an individual who has converted from Islam to Christianity. The RAD finds that the RPD did not err in this regard. The RAD finds that, although the RPD did not make a finding regarding the Appellant's religious beliefs, he did consider whether he would face a serious possibility of persecution as a Muslim who converted to Christianity. [52] As noted by the RPD and confirmed by the RAD's own analysis, the documentary evidence suggests that Muslims who convert to Christianity may face some harm in the North, as a result of Islamic extremist groups, but there is little evidence to suggest that Muslims converted to Christianity would face the same degree of harm in the South of Nigeria, where the Appellant resides.33 The documentary evidence further suggests that Christians in the North fleeing violence from extremist groups in fact come to Lagos to seek refuge so they can practice their religion. The situation in Lagos as compared to other cities in Nigeria is in fact "normal", and Christians can live "peacefully."34 Nigerian police and authorities have in fact worked to strengthen security to ensure its people can practice their religion.35 The RAD finds that, given Port Harcourt is also in the South, it is reasonable to expect that the situation for Christians is similar to Lagos. [53] The RAD also notes that the documentary evidence states that both Christianity and Islam have influence among the Yoruba. The senior research fellow at the Institute of African Studies at the University of Nigeria states that Yoruba people of both religions share an attachment to the "traditional value system", which partly explains the "absence [among the Yoruba people] of the kind of bitter rivalry between Christianity and Islam found in the North." He further explains that Muslims may participate in Christian events in churches while, similarly, Christians may attend Muslim events in mosques. However, the senior research fellow says that "there still exists subtle rivalry arising from interreligious conversions" and that both communities engage in efforts to convert members of the other community. [54] Therefore, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's residual profile as a Muslim converted to Christianity would not create a serious possibility of harm for him, if he remained in the South of Nigeria. CONCLUSION [55] The RAD agrees with the RPD and finds that there is an internal fight alternative for the Appellant, and there is not a serious possibility of harm for him, if he returns to the South of Nigeria and relocates to Port Harcourt. [56] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [57] This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "L. Favreau" L. Favreau October 5, 2016 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 18-20. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 22-28. 4 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385. 5 Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96. 6 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 13.3(a). 7 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 16. 8 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 13.5(b). 9 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 13.5(a). 10 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 13.3(b). 11 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, para. 13.5(a). 12 Raza, 2007 FCA 385. 13 Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991, at 710. 14 Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993; [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.), at 596-599. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 5, Police Extract Incident Report, p. 341. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (November 30, 2015), item 10.3, Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA103988.E, 23 April 2012. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2015), item 10.3. 18 Ibid., NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2015), item 3.10, RIR NGA104617.E, 13 November 2013. 19 Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993; [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.), at 596-599. 20 M.C.I. v. Ranganathan, Rohini (F.C.A., no. A-348-99), Létourneau, Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000. 21 Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993; [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.), at 596-599. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2015), item 13.1, RIR NGA104216.E, 20 November 2012. 23 RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2015), item 13.1. 24 Ibid., NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2015), item 13.1. 25 Ibid., NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2015), item 13.1. 26 Ibid., NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2015), item 13.1. 27 RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2015), item 13.1. 28 RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2015), item 1.6, Nigeria, The World Factbook, 19 November 2015. 29 RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2015), item 13.3, Report of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Rita Izsák. Mission to Nigeria (17 to 28 February 2014), 5 January 2015. 30 RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2015), item 1.6, Nigeria, The World Factbook, 19 November 2015. 31 Sabaratnam, Thavakaran v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-536-90), Mahoney, Stone, Robertson, October 2, 1992. 32 Reynoso, Edith Isabel Guardian v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2110-94), Muldoon, January 29, 1996. 33 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2015), item 12.8, RIR NGA104211.E, 8 November 2012. 34 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2015), item 12.5, RIR NGA105320.E, 17 November 2015. 35 Ibid., NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2015), item 12.5. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-08204