MC0-03555

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC0-03555 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 Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision April 29, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Aaron David Smith Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Viken G. Artinian 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] I dismiss this appeal. [2] XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant) is a citizen of Nigeria. [3] The Appellant alleges a fear of persecution or harm in Nigeria from Fulani herdsmen (the Fulani) due to his religion, and his participation in seeking to protect his community in Ekpoma, Edo State, Nigeria from the Fulani. [4] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the Appellant's claim based on a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Abuja, or Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The RPD found the Appellant failed to demonstrate he would face a serious possibility of persecution nor that he would, on a balance of probabilities, be personally subjected to a danger of torture, to a risk to life, or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, if he were to return to Nigeria. [5] The Appellant argues the RPD erred in its analysis of the proposed IFA locations. [6] The determinative issue is the viability of an IFA in Abuja or Port Harcourt, Nigeria. [7] The Appellant appeals this decision, asking that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) substitute a positive decision. The Appellant submits new evidence pursuant to section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and Rule 29 of the RAD Rules.1 The Appellant requested an oral hearing. [8] After an independent review of the record, including reading the transcript of the hearing before the RPD, analyzing all of the evidence and considering all of the Appellant's arguments, I find that the RPD's decision is correct. The Appellant has a viable IFA in Abuja or Port Harcourt, Nigeria. DECISION [9] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [10] The Appellant is a Christian from Ekpoma, Edo State, Nigeria who resided in Lagos, Nigeria. He is an XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. [11] On XXXX XXXX, 2017, armed Fulani herdsmen attacked the Appellant's community resulting in several deaths. In response, the Appellant organized a public rally, supported by local youths and elders, calling on the government to assist the community and apprehend those responsible. On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the rally was held, and it was attended by approximately XXXX people. The Appellant spoke at the rally and print and television media covered the event, including the Appellant's participation. [12] On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the Appellant returned to Ekpoma, parked his car in the family compound and stayed overnight at his uncle's residence next door. In the early hours of XXXX XXXX, 2017, he was awakened by his uncle who informed him that armed men were breaking into his family's compound. The intruders used the Muslim expression "Allahu Akbar" and called for the Appellant describing him as an infidel. He called the police but did not receive a response. [13] On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the Appellant returned home from work in the evening and sent a helper to retrieve his Apple iPad from his car. Shortly thereafter, he heard a gunshot and a scream from the helper. Two men forced their way into his vehicle and the Appellant escaped by jumping a fence. Three armed men outside his compound chased him, invoking the Muslim expression in pursuit. He went to a police station for assistance. The police investigated that evening, but the Appellant indicates his requests for police protection were not actioned by the authorities. [14] The Appellant departed Nigeria and arrived in the United States of America (U.S.) on XXXX XXXX, 2017. He remained in the U.S. for XXXX months but upon learning of arrests and deaths, allegedly associated with those who participated in the XXXX XXXX, 2017 protest, he entered Canada and made a claim for refugee protection. NEW EVIDENCE AND ORAL HEARING [15] The Appellant submitted new evidence with his Appeal Record which was received on March 5, 2020.2 These submissions will be assessed below. On November 10, 2020, the Appellant submitted an application under Rules 29 and 37 of the RAD Rules to submit 6 new pieces of evidence. This evidence included the following, in relation to an incident and injuries sustained by the Appellant's sister: a. An affidavit from the Appellant's sister; b. A medical report; c. An x-ray report; d. A Nigerian Police investigation report; and e. A DHL slip; and f. Internet web links to documentary evidence.3 [16] For the following reasons, I am not admitting the evidence, as I do not find that it meets the requirements of Rule 29 of the RAD Rules. As I am not admitting the evidence, I cannot convene an oral hearing. [17] Rule 29 of the RAD Rules states that, in determining whether to admit evidence, which is submitted after the Appellant's Record, I must consider any relevant factors including: a. the relevance and probative value of the documents; b. any new evidence the document brings to the appeal; and c. whether the documents could have been provided with the Record.4 [18] I find that this test does not favour admitting the evidence. Evidence related to an incident involving the Appellant's sister is not admissible [19] The new documents detail an incident that resulted in injuries to the Appellant's sister, after she was allegedly assaulted by the Fulani. [20] The Appellant did not indicate in his Rule 29 application how the submissions related to the incident, and corresponding injuries, involving his sister meet Rule 29 of the RAD Rules or section 110(4) of the IRPA. The Appellant submitted new evidence with his Appeal Record related to the incident and injuries sustained by his sister. In his Appeal Record, he indicated this information was not available at the time of the RPD's decision and could not have been reasonably expected at the time of the decision since the incident occurred after the RPD's decision and this information was not known to him at the time of the decision. He also indicated that additional information related to the incident would be submitted at a later date, and these documents, in part, are included in his Rule 29 application. I accept the explanation for the timing of the submission of the documents included in the Appeal Record and find that the Appellant has established that he could not reasonably have provided these documents with his Appeal Record. However, this is not the only factor I must consider. [21] I have considered whether these documents are relevant and probative, and I find that they are not. The documents speak to the agents of persecution continuing to look for the Appellant in Edo State, Nigeria, where he frequently visited prior to leaving Nigeria. The RPD's decision under appeal relates to the viability of an IFA in Abuja and Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The Appellant has not provided any explanation as to how this incident in Edo State demonstrates that the IFA in either Abuja, Federal Capital Territory or Port Harcourt, Rivers State is not viable, including whether Fulani local to Edo State would be motivated to look for him in the proposed IFA locations. I do not find the documents to be relevant to the questions at issue. [22] Even if I were to admit the police investigation report under Rule 29, I do not find it meets the Singh factor of being credible since it has irregularities on its face. Specifically, the document purports to be a "police investigation report"5 but it is dated XXXX XXXX, 2020 when the incident allegedly occurred two months prior on XXXX XXXX, 2019. The document describes what the Appellant's sister reported to have occurred on XXXX XXXX, 2019 and then indicates what the police observed when they arrived at the scene of the incident. The report shifts from a description of what the Appellant reported to the Police, in the past tense, to a description of what occurred when they arrived on the scene. The report does not include specific information related to an investigation continuing following the day of the incident other than to suggest an effort is being made to apprehend those responsible. It is more likely than not that the police would have written an investigation report concerning the incident shortly after the day of the incident when they arrived on the alleged crime scene rather than two months following the incident. On a balance of probabilities, a police investigation report would focus on police activities related to investigating the incident rather than lengthy details provided by the Appellant's sister about the Appellant. I find this undermines the credibility of the document. [23] The document uses 'third person' descriptions, such as "the Police" to describe the activities of the issuing authority, which appears, on a balance of probabilities, to be irregular. Further, the document indicates that the Appellant's sister received First Aid from neighbours and one "called the Police to notify the office, after which she was taken to the hospital." The document then states "On arrival, the Police saw [the Appellant's sister], who was been [sic] attended to by neighbours..."6 This inconsistency regarding when the Appellant's sister was taken to the hospital also undermines the credibility of the document. Finally, the logo of the police force appears irregular with the letterhead, including the police force logo, off centred, which further undermines the credibility of the document. On a balance of probabilities, I do not find the police investigation report to be credible and therefore it is not admitted. [24] I find that the evidence related to the incident involving the Appellant's sister is not new, even if I were to admit it under Rule 29. The RPD accepted the Appellant's allegations regarding the Fulani's actions in Edo State, where the alleged incident involving his sister also occurred, as credible. The submitted evidence alleges that, as of XXXX 2019, the threats continue, and the agents of persecution continue to look for the Appellant in Edo State. Therefore, I find this offers no new evidence to the appeal. It is accepted that the agents of persecution are looking for the Appellant in Edo State. [25] The evidence is not admitted, and therefore no oral hearing can be convened. Even had I admitted the evidence, I would not have convened a hearing, as this evidence is not determinative. Had I admitted the evidence, it would have had no bearing on the outcome of this appeal, as I accept that the Appellant would be at risk in Edo State. The website links for documentary evidence is not admissible [26] The Appellant has not provided any documentation as new evidence in the submission labelled "Exhibit 9" in his Rule 29 Application, as required under the RAD Rules but has included references to forty internet web links and select excerpts from these webpages. I first note that any submission of new evidence must be in printed form not a simple reference to an internet web link. In the absence of the actual documents containing the excerpts, I am unable to ascertain the publication date of the information to determine if the documents could have been provided with the Appellant's Record. Even if this could be determined, I do not find the excerpts to be relevant or probative. The excerpts speak to the presence of the Fulani throughout Nigeria, collusion with local police and the indiscriminate nature of their illegal activities. However, the RPD's decision under appeal relates to the viability of an IFA in Abuja and Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The Appellant has not provided any explanation as to how the excerpts demonstrate that the Fulani in Edo State have the motivation to locate the Appellant nor has an explanation been provided to indicate the Fulani have the capability, since it would require coordinating their efforts across Nigeria, that would render the IFA in either Abuja, or Port Harcourt as not being viable. The request for new evidence has not been made in compliance with the RAD Rules and there have been no submissions of documents to assess under Rule 29 of the RAD Rules or under section 110(4) of IRPA. [27] I therefore decline to accept these references to internet web links as new evidence in this appeal. The evidence is not admitted, and therefore no oral hearing can be convened. Even had I admitted the evidence, I would not have convened a hearing, as this evidence is not determinative. Had I admitted the evidence, it would have had no bearing on the outcome of this appeal, as I accept the presence of the Fulani throughout Nigeria. Evidence submitted as part of the Appeal Record is not admitted [28] I can only admit this evidence if an appellant shows that it meets certain criteria. Specifically, it must meet one of three legal tests. First, it is admissible if the content post-dates the rejection of the appellant's claim. Second, it is admissible if the evidence was not reasonably available when the claim was rejected. Third, it is admissible if the appellant could not reasonably have been expected to provide the evidence at the time of the rejection of their claim. If one of these conditions is met, then the appellant must also show the evidence is credible, relevant and new for it to be admitted. 7 If any new evidence is admitted, then I can consider whether to hold an oral hearing. [29] As a starting principle, it is the appellant's burden to establish how the new evidence meets these requirements. Specifically, rule 3(3)(g)(iii) directs the appellant to include submissions on how any new evidence meets the requirements for admission. Moreover, the Federal Court has held that the onus is on the appellant to establish how new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA.8 [30] The Appellant submitted new evidence with his Appeal Record which was received on March 5, 20209. He did not request an oral hearing10. The new evidence submissions listed by the Appellant are the following: a. X-ray of his sister's injuries; b. Pictures of his sister's injuries; c. Online newspaper articles and European Parliament Motion; and d. Map of Nigeria The Appellant also submitted an affidavit, but it is not listed as new evidence. I have considered the contents of the document related to how the submissions of new evidence meet the requirements in section 110(4) of the IRPA. Evidence related to an incident involving the Appellant's sister is not admitted [31] Counsel indicates the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the documents related to the incident involving his sister at the time of the RPD's decision as the incident was not known to him prior to the rejection of his claim. I accept the explanation for the timing of the submission of the documents, involving his sister's injuries, included in the Appeal Record and find the Appellant has established that he could not reasonably have provided these documents for the reason provided. [32] I note that in the submissions neither the Appellant nor Counsel have indicated how the documents are relevant, as they relate to the Appellant, or how the submissions are credible. Nonetheless, I have considered whether these documents are relevant, and I find that they are not. The submissions indicate that injuries were suffered by the Appellant's sister but do not indicate how they relate to the Appellant or how these are relevant to his appeal. As previously indicated, the RPD's decision under appeal relates to the viability of an IFA in Abuja and Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The Appellant has not provided any explanation as to how the injuries sustained by his sister demonstrate that the IFA in either Abuja, or Port Harcourt, Nigeria is not viable. I do not find the documents to be relevant to the questions at issue. The submissions related to the injuries sustained by the Appellant's sister are not admitted. The online newspaper articles and European Parliament Motion are not admitted [33] Counsel indicates the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the online newspaper articles and the European Parliament Motion (the articles) prior to the RPD's decision as the articles were published following the rejection of his claim. After reviewing the documents, I concur and accept the explanation for the timing of the submission of the documents given the publishing date of each. [34] Counsel contends the articles are relevant because they "counter" the RPD's finding that the Fulani are not present in Abuja or Port Harcourt, Nigeria and would not be able to find the Appellant, which undermines the viability of an IFA in either of those two cities. Counsel argues the articles also counter the RPD finding that "no evidence existed" that the police do not arrest the Fulani or cooperate with them. As well, the articles, Counsel asserts, indicate, counter to the RPD's finding, that the Fulani only attack farmers rather than the general population. [35] After reviewing the articles, I find the submissions do not provide reason to believe the Fulani have a widespread presence in the States where the proposed IFA locations are located, nor do the articles indicate the ability of the Fulani to pursue or locate individuals in Nigeria, including in the proposed IFA locations. I do not find the articles indicate the police are coordinated or directed to cooperate with the Fulani on a national or state level such that actions by the Fulani towards the Appellant would be considered to be on behalf of the state, as the RPD indicated.11 The articles do not present evidence that contradicts the RPD's finding that the Fulani "primarily" conduct attacks related to land clearing or acquisition.12 [36] Moreover, the RPD's decision under appeal relates to the viability of an IFA in Abuja and Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The articles do not provide, nor has the Appellant indicated, how the proposed IFA locations are not viable, nor do they present the means upon which the Fulani would utilize to locate the Appellant in the proposed IFA locations. As such, I do not find the articles are relevant to the viability of an IFA in either of those locations. The evidence is not admitted. The Map of Nigeria is not admitted [37] The map of Nigeria submitted by the Appellant is included and sourced from the National Documentation Package for Nigeria.13 The evidence is not admitted as it is already part of the record. [38] Since I have not accepted any new evidence, this appeal will proceed without an oral hearing. ANALYSIS [39] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.14 [40] There are two parts of the legal test for assessing an IFA.15 [41] First, I must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no serious possibility of the Appellant being persecuted, and/or no danger of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFA locations. [42] Second, the conditions in the IFAs must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, for the Appellant to seek refuge there. The RPD did not err in applying Jurisprudential Guide TB7-19851 [43] I note that the Nigeria IFA Jurisprudential Guide was revoked but identified as Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) Reasons of Interest as a framework of analysis for IFA in south and central Nigeria.16 The Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board designated RAD decision TB7-1985117 as a Jurisprudential Guide (JG TB7-19851) on July 6, 2018. This Guide considered IFAs in major cities in south and central Nigeria for claimants fleeing non-state actors. While the RPD was not obliged, it was encouraged to apply JG TB7-19851 where the facts underlying the decision are sufficiently close to those in the case being decided to justify its application. The Chairperson of the IRB revoked JG TB7-19851 as a jurisprudential guide on April 8, 2020. In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal found no issue with JG TB7-19851 "given its particular emphasis on each claim's specific circumstances, did not fetter the discretion of Board members or improperly interfere with their independence."18 [44] Counsel argues the RPD erred in applying JG TB7-19851 (JG) because the Appellant differs from the appellant in the JG since he is fleeing "an entire group who is notorious for their violent activities and who have already targeted the Appellant in the past."19 Counsel contends the RPD erred by applying the JG because each case should be assessed on its own merits and the alleged agent of persecution has a "broader reach" than the agent of persecution in the JG.20 [45] The RPD indicated that the facts in the present case were sufficiently similar to apply the JG and then specified that it was guided by paragraphs 17-19 in the JG.21 The paragraphs in the JG cited by the RPD reference that there are very large, multilingual and multiethnic cities in south and central Nigeria where persons fleeing non-state actors may establish themselves "depending on their own particular circumstances."22 I disagree that the RPD erred because neither the JG nor the documentary evidence differentiates or categorizes non-state actors, the proposed IFA locations are included in the JG, and the RPD conducted an assessment of the Appellant's particular circumstances.23 While the documentary evidence details the criminal activities of the Fulani, the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Fulani have the "reach" alleged. The documentary evidence states there are "no clear indications that Fulani herdsmen have a common political objective, and that Fulani clans generally conduct their activities independently."24 The assertion that the Fulani have a "broader reach" is not supported by the evidence since such a 'reach' would require coordination and a demonstrated network sophisticated enough to extend to the proposed IFA locations as implied by the Appellant's "broader reach" categorization of their capabilities. The RPD did not err in assessing the first prong of the IFA test [46] The Appellant argues the RPD erred in its assessment of the first prong of the IFA test. I disagree for the reasons that follow. [47] The Appellant does not explicitly argue but implies the RPD erred in assessing his testimony regarding the connection between law enforcement and the Fulani. The implication is that the RPD erred in its determination regarding this connection and the Appellant.25 In the absence of documentary evidence indicating law enforcement and the Fulani act in concert, the RPD determined any actions the Fulani would take with respect to the Appellant would not be on behalf of the state. I agree with the RPD since the documentary evidence on the record does not indicate the Fulani and the State act in concert to advance their respective goals. On a balance of probabilities, the Fulani are not agents of the State because they are not acting to advance the interests of the State. While local law enforcement may ignore certain Fulani activities, related to local incidents, this is not, on a balance of probabilities, an example of the State sponsoring or supporting the Fulani to advance its interests. In the absence of such documentary evidence, the Fulani cannot be said to be agents of the State. [48] The Appellant implies the RPD erred in finding the Fulani would neither have the means nor the motivation to find him in the proposed IFA location. The Appellant disagrees with and summarizes the RPD's reasoning as follows: "the objective evidence demonstrates that they only operate in rural areas, that they are only interested in land and that they operate independently and therefore would not attempt to track him down."26 [49] The RPD found the Appellant's allegations regarding the Fulani in Edo State to be credible. However, the RPD, based on the documentary evidence on the record, found the Fulani are primarily motivated on clearing land for their use and any civilian casualties are a result of this focus. The RPD also found there was no evidence, whether through the Appellant's testimony or in the documentary evidence, that the Fulani, in pursuit of pastoral land for their cattle, track individuals in various locations in Nigeria. It also found based on the documentary evidence that the Fulani operate as independent groups without common political objectives or in coordination based on common goals.27 Moreover, the RPD found there is no evidence on the record of the Fulani demonstrating "any particular capabilities...to pursue, or locate, or track individuals in different locations."28 [50] The documentary evidence does not support the Appellant's implication that the Fulani would have the means and motivation to locate him in the proposed IFA locations. There is no documentary evidence indicating the Fulani have the capability or means to locate individuals across Nigeria, including in the proposed IFA locations. The Appellant asserted in testimony that the Fulani would be able to track him through his mobile telephone since it is registered.29 According to the National Documentation Package for Nigeria, personal information of mobile telephone subscribers is registered in a central database and can only be provided to security agencies, upon a request in writing by officials holding the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or the equivalent.30 While there is significant corruption in Nigeria, on a balance of probabilities, the Fulani would not have the motivation to access the connections required to obtain the Appellant's mobile telephone number in the proposed IFA locations since the Appellant's alleged anti-Fulani profile and influence is limited. The Appellant's profile resulted because of a speech in front of one hundred people over three years ago in Edo State. On a balance of probabilities, given the passage of time and the limited breadth of his profile at that time, the Fulani would not be motivated to locate the Appellant in the proposed IFA locations. Moreover, the Fulani, being cattle owners, herdsmen and operating independently, would more likely than not focus their activities locally since their interests in securing pastoral land is not an interest that would extend across Nigerian states. [51] The Appellant argues he was identified by name and picture in a national newspaper and on television and as a result is "clearly identifiable" throughout Nigeria. He also asserts the RPD erred in failing to consider that a colleague who participated in the same public rally was killed in Port Harcourt "from suspected Fulani herdsmen," indicating he would also be found in Port Harcourt.31 [52] The newspaper and television reports occurred in 2017. It is more likely than not that during the intervening years the reports at the time, involving a public rally in Edo State in front of one XXXX people, would have long since subsided in the general public's consciousness, as well as with the Fulani. The suggestion that he is still "clearly identifiable" throughout Nigeria is more likely than not incorrect given that the rally occurred in Edo State, was limited in scale and with the intervening years fading any recognition of the Appellant he may have had at the time. While the RPD did not mention the allegation that a participant at the rally was pursued, located, and killed in Port Harcourt,32 I do not find this omission fatal to the RPD's decision. Since the Appellant describes the perpetrators of the alleged killing as "suspected Fulani herdsmen," the allegation is speculative. I do not find the RPD erred since the Appellant's speculation over who was responsible for the alleged killing does not, on a balance of probabilities, speak to the means and motivation the Fulani would have towards pursuing the Appellant in either of the proposed IFA locations. [53] The Appellant cites information from the National Documentation Package for Nigeria in arguing the information contradicts the RPD's findings. The information cited by the Appellant indicates the Fulani are present in the Middle Belt and in the south of Nigeria, conduct indiscriminate attacks on populations, and the perception of the complicity of security forces delaying their response to reported attacks and a lack of prosecution of those attacks. [54] I accept that the Fulani are present in States throughout Nigeria. However, the presence of the Fulani in States across Nigeria does not speak to the means and motivation the Fulani would have to pursue and locate the Appellant in the proposed IFA locations. The documentary evidence indicates the Fulani are not a coordinated movement seeking to conduct their activities towards common goals.33 Indiscriminate attacks are noted in the documentary evidence, but this is not indicative of the capabilities of the Fulani to coordinate through a network sophisticated enough to locate the Appellant nor does it speak to their motivation to pursue the Appellant outside of Edo State. The security forces perceived or real delays in responding to Fulani attacks and noted prosecution issues does not, on a balance of probabilities, mean the Fulani are acting in concert with the state to pursue common goals such that the Fulani are state agents. I do not find the references cited from the NDP are indicative of the RPD erring in its assessment of the means and motivation of the Fulani to locate the Appellant in the proposed IFA locations. The RPD correctly assessed the second prong of the IFA test [55] The Appellant does not argue the RPD erred in assessing the second prong of the IFA test. The RPD considered the Appellant's personal circumstances, including education and language, and it concluded that he has not established that it would be unreasonable for him to relocate to the proposed IFA locations. [56] The Appellant holds a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) in XXXX and a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX University, in XXXX, XXXX. The Appellant's XXXX is a professional designation in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The documentary evidence shows that Nigerian males complete an average of 9 years of education.34 The Appellant was employed in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from 2014 to 2017. On a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would not be restricted in terms of the type of XXXX work he could undertake, which broadens the type of employment available to him. The Appellant has an above-average education with a professional designation, meaningful work history, and the ability to work in various XXXX-related jobs, which places him, on a balance of probabilities, in a better position than the average Nigerian to find employment. [57] The Appellant testified he would experience language difficulties in the proposed IFA locations. The RPD noted the Appellant is fluent in both English and Yoruba and acknowledged while Yoruba may not be the local language in Abuja that both English and Yoruba are still spoken widely. The NDP establishes that English is the official language in Nigeria and Yoruba is widely spoken; especially in large urban centers, like Southern Nigeria where Port Harcourt is located. Yoruba is one of the top three languages spoken in Nigeria.35 I find both languages spoken by the Appellant are also widely spoken and, on a balance of probabilities, find English and Yoruba common enough that the Appellant would not face any unreasonable language barriers in the proposed IFA locations. I find that the RPD appropriately considered the circumstances of the Appellant and correctly concluded that he had not established that it was unreasonable for him to relocate to either Abuja or Port Harcourt. [58] The Appellant also testified that he would have difficulty finding employment in either of the proposed IFA locations. I recognize that the unemployment rate is high in Nigeria. This is a condition that most citizens in Nigeria must contend. The Appellant has not provided specific evidence about how the high unemployment rate in Nigeria would make the proposed IFAs unreasonable; especially given that he has an above-average education, meaningful work experience and widely spoken language skills. On a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would be able to find employment to support himself in the proposed IFA locations. [59] The threshold set by the Federal Court for the second prong of the IFA test requires nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of an appellant. On a balance of probabilities, I find the proposed IFA locations would not be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in his particular circumstances. CONCLUSION [60] I agree with the RPD and find Abuja and Port Harcourt, Nigeria are viable IFA locations. 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. Aaron Smith Aaron David Smith April 29, 2021 Date 1 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257. 2 P-2, Appellants' Record, at page 1. 3 P-3, Rule 29 Application (November 10, 2020). 4 RAD Rule 29(4). 5 P-3, Rule 29 Application (November 10, 2020), at page 15. 6 Ibid. 7 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raza FC 385 8 Hafuzi, Milazim v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1052-18), Favel, November 30, 2018, 2018 FC 1206, at paras. 29-30; and M.C.I. v. Singh, Parminder (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96, at paras. 34-35. 9 P-2, Appellants' Record, at page 1. 10 P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Written Statement. 11 RPD-1, RPD Record, at page 6, para. 9. 12 Ibid., at page 7, para. 13. 13 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3 - National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 29 November 2019, tab 1.2: ?Nigeria. United Nations. Cartographic Section. August 2014. 14Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 15 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No 1172, [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (F.C.A); and, Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] F.C.J. No. 1256, [1992] 1 F.C. 706, 140 N.R. 138 (F.C.A). 16 On July 6, 2018, pursuant to s. 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Policy on the Use of Jurisprudential Guides (Policy 2003-01, as amended on December 3, 2019) and following consultation with the Deputy Chairpersons of the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada's (IRB) Chairperson identified the following decision of the RAD as a jurisprudential guide: TB7-19851, X (Re), 2018 CanLII 52123. The IRB is committed to regularly reviewing the most current country of origin information available and to addressing any issues identified regarding the continued application of the Jurisprudential Guide. Developments in the country of origin information, including those in relation to the ability of single women to relocate to the various internal flight alternatives proposed in the Nigeria jurisprudential guide, have diminished the value of the decision as a jurisprudential guide. Accordingly, as of 6 April 2020 the identification of decision TB7-19851 as a jurisprudential guide is revoked. The framework of analysis of the revoked jurisprudential guide, absent any of the factual findings, will be identified as a RAD Reasons of Interest decision. The framework includes the legal test for identifying a viable internal flight alternative as well as the seven factors set out at paragraphs 14-15 and 21-30. In this way, members will be able to use the analytical framework in assessing the facts of each case as well as the most current country of origin information. 17 X (Re), 2018 CanLII 52123 (CA IRB). 18 Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 (CanLII) 19 P-2, Appellant's record, Memorandum of Argument, page 41, para. 8. 20 Ibid., at page 41, para. 9. 21 Immigration and Refugee Board (lRB), Jurisprudential Guide, Scope: Internal Flight Alternatives in Maior Cities in South and Central Nigeria for Claimants Fleeing Non-State Actors (Refugee Appeal Division decision TB7-19851), May 17, 2018. 22 Ibid., at para. 19. 23 RPD-1, RPD record, Reasons, January 14, 2020, pages 6-8, paras. 9-19. 24RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3 - National Documentation Package for Nigeria, (November 29, 2019), Item 7.31: NGA106152.E, 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. 25 P-2, Appellant's record, Memorandum of Argument, page 41, para. 10. 26 Ibid., page 41, para. 11. 27 RPD-1, RPD record, Reasons, January 14, 2020, page 7, para. 15. 28 Ibid. 29 Transcript of the hearing before the RPD, October 22, 2019, page 26, para. 10. 30 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3 - National Documentation Package for Nigeria (November 29, 2019), Item 1.14, Requirements and procedures to obtain a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card and to open a bank account; extent to which SIM card and banking information is available to third parties, including authorities and elected politicians (2018-February 2019), Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA106245, February 18, 2019. 31 P-2, Appellant's record, Memorandum of Argument, pages 41-42, para. 12. 32 Transcript of the hearing before the RPD, October 22, 2019, page 24, para. 30. 33RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3 - National Documentation Package for Nigeria, (November 29, 2019), Item 7.31: NGA106152.E, 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. 34 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3 - National Documentation Package for Nigeria (November 29, 2019), Item 1.6: United States, Central Intelligence Agency, April 23, 2019, Nigeria. The World Factbook. 35 Ibid. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC0-03555 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