TB9-31368

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-31368 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 March 9, 2021 Date de la décision Panel David Morris Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Sharanjit Singh Padda 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 OVERVIEW [1] These are my reasons for dismissing the appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant). [2] The Appellant is a citizen of Nigeria. He was chosen as the Chief Priest or custodian of the local shrine by the deity in his father's home village of XXXX, in Delta State. The Appellant refused the title because he is a Christian. He was then threatened by elders from the village who said they would use every means possible to force him to comply. He relocated to Ogun State. In Ogun State some young men attempted to kidnap the Appellant, but he escaped. He reported this to the police, but no investigation appears to have been conducted. The Appellant relocated to his maternal cousin's home in Abuja where he began to make plans to come to Canada. He applied for and received a visa for the United States (US) and, with the help of his cousin, began to save money for the purchase of an air ticket. However, one day while the Appellant was out, unknown men came looking for him at his cousin's home. The Appellant then fled Nigeria and made his way from the US to Canada where he claimed refugee protection. Refugee Protection Division findings [3] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the determinative issues were credibility and internal flight alternative (IFA). It found that the Appellant was inconsistent on where he had lived and worked prior to coming to Canada and for what period of time. It found the Appellant failed to provide reasonable explanations for these inconsistencies. It therefore drew negative inferences with respect to the Appellant's credibility. It also found that, given these inconsistencies, the Appellant's allegations that he was traced to Ogun State and Abuja were not credible. [4] The RPD further found it implausible that the elders would go to the extremes alleged simply to install someone as Chief Priest who clearly does not want the role. Although the Appellant provided a letter from his pastor in Nigeria indicating that the shrine was alleged to have magic powers, the RPD took judicial notice that magic does not exist and gave the letter no weight. [5] In the alternative, the RPD found that the Appellant had viable IFAs in Benin City, Ibadan, Ilorin and Abeokuta. The RPD applied the Jurisprudential Guide respecting the availability of an IFA in Nigeria for persons fleeing non-state actors which has since been revoked.1 It found there was no evidence of any network the elders could use to trace the Appellant and that he would not be recognised by strangers in the proposed IFAs. It therefore determined there was insufficient evidence that the Appellant would be traced to the proposed IFAs. [6] The RPD found that the Appellant is able-bodied, speaks English, is educated and has work experience. It therefore found that "the second prong of the IFA test has been met."2 Summary of Appellant's arguments [7] The Appellant submits that the RPD: i. erred in law because it made perverse credibility findings based on probabilities, made improper inferences, and ignored and misconstrued the evidence properly before it; ii. erred in law in concluding that the evidence did not establish a serious possibility he would be persecuted or that he would face a risk of torture or a risk to life or be subject to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment should he return to Nigeria; iii. denied the Appellant's natural and fundamental justice as a result of the conduct of the hearing; and iv. erred in law when it determined that the Appellant's claim was not well founded on an objective basis by misapplying or misinterpreting that test or the standard of proof required. NEW EVIDENCE None of the new evidence will be admitted [8] According to the law,3 I can only accept evidence that: i. arose after the RPD decision; or ii. was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. you could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [9] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible and relevant before I can accept it.4 [10] The Appellant seeks to admit his affidavit with a number of documents attached as Exhibits.5 The Appellant makes no submissions as to how any of the new evidence meets the above criteria. Nonetheless, I have considered each document. [11] With regard to the affidavit itself, as the Appellant explains, "This [affidavit] is an additional information and the explanation to my [Basis of Claim Form] Narrative I submitted with the Application ... ."6 The affidavit for the most part simply reiterates information already provided or provides further details that were always in existence and therefore could reasonably have been provided prior to the rejection of the Appellant's claim. The remainder of the affidavit deals with his Canadian spousal sponsorship and is therefore not relevant to any matter in issue in this appeal. The Appellant's affidavit will not be admitted. [12] With regard to the Exhibits to the affidavit, the narrative from the Appellant's Basis of Claim Form,7 his Port of Entry documents8 and the letter from his pastor9 are already in the RPD Record. There is no need to consider them for admission as new evidence. [13] The marriage certificate10 and decree nisi11 with respect to the Appellant's former spouse in Nigeria, the marriage certificate with respect to his current spouse in Canada12 and the confirmation that his current spouse has sponsored him to immigrate to Canada13 are not relevant to any matter in issue as I have no jurisdiction to consider the sponsorship application by his current spouse. These documents will not be admitted. [14] The Appellant has submitted additional documents. These deal with a variety of issues and include what appear to be excerpts of Wikipedia articles on the Ukwuani people and the god Chukwu which have been copied and pasted into a document,14 an article on the mistreatment of boys at an Islamic school in Nigeria,15 an article on the mistreatment of mental health patients in Nigeria,16 an Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Response to Information Request on tribal markings17 and a map showing the location of various Nigerian ethnic groups within the country.18 I find none of these are relevant in the sense of being able to prove or disprove a fact that is relevant to the Appellant's claim. They will not be admitted. [15] As no new evidence has been admitted, I have no jurisdiction to hold an oral hearing.19 ANALYSIS [16] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.20 Here, the Record is sufficient for me to come to my own determination, including with respect to credibility. I therefore have not deferred to the RPD. The Appellant was not denied natural justice or procedural fairness by the RPD [17] Although the Appellant alleges that the conduct of the RPD hearing resulted in a denial of fundamental or natural justice, he has presented no arguments to support this position. The Appellant appears to assert that the RPD engaged in an overly aggressive cross-examination of him during his testimony. However, he has not pointed to any specific instance where the RPD did so. I have reviewed the audio recording of the hearing as well as the transcript. While the RPD asked pointed questions, I find no basis for finding that it engaged in unacceptable conduct or overly aggressive questioning. There was no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness. Some of the RPD's credibility findings were peripheral or irrelevant [18] The RPD made several negative credibility findings with respect to the Appellant's addresses and work history in the time leading up to his flight from Nigeria. The Appellant argues that the RPD's credibility findings were perverse, that it made improper inferences and that it ignored or misconstrued the evidence. [19] The RPD's findings with regard to the Appellant's addresses and work history were based on inconsistencies with the documents he completed when he entered Canada.21 The inconsistencies were minor and, in my assessment, peripheral to the basis of the Appellant's claim. I draw no negative inference from these inconsistencies or omissions. [20] Nonetheless, the Appellant must still establish, on a balance of probabilities, the core allegations upon which his claim is based. The Appellant has failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the elders of the village would force him to take up the position of Chief Priest of their local shrine [21] I find the Appellant's allegation that he would be targeted because of his refusal to accept the role of Chief Priest is not credible for the following reasons. [22] The RPD asked the Appellant to explain why the elders of the village would force him to take up a position that he clearly did not want: MEMBER: And why would they want to forcefully make you do something if you don't want to do it? Like, why would they want to force you to do it? CLAIMANT: You know the tradition, when it comes to tradition, they don't even have any respect for anybody.22 [23] The Appellant's answer is not responsive. The Appellant's basic allegations also run contrary to the objective documentation which indicates that: In the case of refusing a title of a fetish priest, an IRB source stated that 'it would not be considered an offence against the shrine for someone to refuse the role of chief priest or fetish priest'. The source 'never heard of the priesthood being forced on anyone in Nigeria [...]. The shrine would want a successor who had the interest in and aptitude for the role'.23 [24] Another source indicates that Christians have been refusing to take positions in shrines since the Christian missionization of Nigeria in the 19th century.24 [25] Against this, I have considered the letter from the Appellant's pastor in Nigeria which indicates that persons can be abducted and brought "under the influence of the deity."25 However, I find the RPD was correct in giving this letter no weight as there is no indication on its face of the source of the author's knowledge or expertise aside from the Appellant's testimony that he received it as a WhatsApp text from his parish pastor. [26] Therefore, even accepting that the Appellant was chosen to be Chief Priest, the objective evidence simply does not support his allegation he would be forced to take the position if he refused. Especially if his refusal was due to his Christian beliefs. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding his claim is not objectively well founded. However, he does not point to any evidence which would support this position. [27] Finally, the Appellant argues that, The tribunal erred in law when it stated in ... the decision[:] "By way of conclusion, heaving [sic] considered all the evidence, I determine That [sic] there is not a serious Possibility [sic] that the claimant would be persecuted in Nigeria or that on a balance of probabilities that he would be personally subjected to a danger of torture, of [sic] face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment up on [sic] return to Nigeria."26 [28] However, it is not enough for the Appellant to simply allege an error on the part of the RPD. In order to succeed, the Appellant must show how the RPD erred. This he has failed to do. [29] In summary, the Appellant has failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the core allegations upon which his claim is based. This is determinative of the Appellant's claim under both section 96 and section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).27 IFA not an issue [30] Similarly, the issue of IFA does not arise in this appeal as I have determined the Appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution or any other harm in Nigeria. CONCLUSION [31] I dismiss the appeal and pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA, confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) David Morris David Morris 9 March 2021 Date 1 Jurisprudential Guide - Decision TB7-19851, Guide identified by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Effective date July 6, 2018, Revoked April 6, 2020. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 8, line 26. 3 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, subsection 110(4). 4 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 39-76. 6 Ibid., Appellant's Affidavit, at p. 39, para. 6. 7 Ibid., at pp. 43-45. 8 Ibid., at pp. 66-76. 9 Ibid., at p. 51. 10 Ibid., at p. 47. 11 Ibid., at p. 46. 12 Ibid., at p. 48. 13 Ibid., at pp. 49-50. 14 Ibid., at p. 52. 15 Ibid., at pp. 53-54. 16 Ibid., at pp. 55-57. 17 Ibid., at pp. 58-63. 18 Ibid., at pp. 64-65. 19 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, subsection 110(6). 20 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at pp. 32 and 33. 22 Transcript of 24 October 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 16, lines 11-15. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (20 August 2019), item 1.13, European Asylum Support Office, ?EASO Country of Origin Information Report. Nigeria: Targeting of Individuals, November 2018, at para. 3.9.4.2. This document is also included in the current NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2020), item 1.13. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (20 August 2019), item 12.11, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Research Directorate, Response to Information Request NGA103485.E, Nigeria: Consequences for a person to refuse a chief priest or fetish priest position for which they have been selected in south and central Nigeria, 6 July 2010, at p. 4. This document is also included in the current NDP for Nigeria (30 November 2020), item 12.2. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 76. 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 25, para. 8.E. 27 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-31368 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