MC0-09819

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-09819 MC0-09820 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 25, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Zacharie Kalieu Njomkam Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the male appellant) and his wife, XXXX XXXX XXXX (the female appellant) are both citizens of Nigeria. They are appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting their refugee protection claim. [2] The appeal is dismissed for the following reasons. BACKGROUND [3] The appellants lived in the town of Iju-Akure in Ondo state, where the male appellant was a XXXX and managed a XXXX. [4] The male appellant alleges that on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, in his role as XXXX XXXX XXXX for the XXXX des XXXXde XXXX du Nigéria [XXXX XXXX of Nigeria], he appeared on a television program during which he discussed the activities of Fulani herdsmen in the western part of the country. [5] The male appellant alleges that two days later, he began receiving threatening messages on his telephone accusing him of having spoken out against Fulani herdsmen and Islam. [6] The male appellant alleges that on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, he and two of his sons were beaten by armed herdsmen who used his land as pasture for their cows. That same day, his house, XXXX and car were vandalized. His brother was allegedly killed on his own farm by the same herdsmen. [7] The appellants left their town for Lagos, where they obtained visas for the United States. They left Nigeria for the United States on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, and made it to Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, to claim refugee protection here. [8] Following a hearing on August 24, 2020, the RPD rejected the claim on the ground that the appellants have an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Nigeria in the cities of Lagos and Abuja. [9] Before the RAD, the appellants submit that the RPD erred in its assessment of the IFA for reasons that will be detailed below in the Analysis section, if necessary. [10] For these reasons, the appellants are asking the RAD to set aside the RPD's determination and to grant them protection or, alternatively, refer the matter to the RPD for re-determination. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [11] The role of the RAD is to review RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard of review after conducting its own analysis of the record in order to determine whether the RPD erred, as submitted by the appellants. ANALYSIS [12] The issue in this case is whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the IFA for the appellants in Nigeria. [13] In my opinion, the answer to this question is no, for the following reasons. [14] The test to be applied to assess the IFA was set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Rasaratnam1 and Thirunavukkarasu,2 and it is clear from these decisions that the test to be applied in determining whether there is an IFA is two-pronged: 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." 2. Moreover, 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 claimant, for him to seek refuge there. [15] Both prongs must be satisfied for a finding that the claimant has an IFA. [16] First, the RPD considered that the appellants' fear in Nigeria was not due to one of the five grounds set out in the "Convention refugee" definition and consequently analyzed the claim from the perspective of section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), or that of "person in need of protection." [17] The appellants submit that that conclusion was erroneous and that they are members of a particular social group, namely [translation] "farmers." [18] I do not agree with this submission. First, in my opinion, "farmers" do not form a particular social group, and second, I am of the view that regardless, the RPD's decision concerning the IFA is applicable from the perspective of both section 96 and section 97 of the Act. What is more, this is what the RPD appears to have also concluded at paragraph 20 of the second page of the transcript of its reasons when it delivered the decision orally at the hearing. [19] With respect to the first prong of the analysis, the RPD determined that an IFA exists for the appellants in the cities of Lagos and Abuja for the following reasons. * The Fulani herdsmen have no interest in pursuing the appellants to the locations proposed as IFAs, as the documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) on Nigeria indicates that the primary concerns of the Fulani herdsmen are having access to pasture for their herds and preserving their way of life; * The appellants have three adult children who still live in the town of Iju Akure, and nothing in the evidence indicates that the Fulani herdsmen are looking for the appellants; * The documentary evidence indicates that the Fulani herdsmen do not have common goals and carry out their activities independently, thereby demonstrating that this group also does not have the capacity to track down the appellants in the cities proposed as IFAs. [20] The appellants are arguing on appeal that the RPD's analysis was erroneous in that it cites, in its reasons, Tab 3.1 of the NDP on Nigeria (of July 31, 2020),3 yet this document contains no reference whatsoever to Fulani herdsmen. [21] This is an error on the part of the RPD that is possibly attributable to the fact that its decision was delivered orally but that, in my view, does not vitiate its decision. The information considered by the RPD is indeed included in the NDP on Nigeria (of July 31, 2020) but simply under other tabs, including 7.14,4 7.20,5 7.306 and 7.31.7 [22] The appellants are not specifically contesting the basis of the RPD's decision and, for my part, I do not see where it allegedly erred. [23] Considering the documentary evidence on the Fulani herdsmen outlined above and the facts alleged by the appellants, and without seeking to minimize the consequences of the frequently violent relations between said Fulani herdsmen and farmers, I nonetheless also conclude, for the same reasons cited by the RPD, that there is an IFA for the appellants in Nigeria in the cities of Lagos and Abuja. [24] As for the second prong of the IFA assessment, namely the reasonableness of the IFA, the RPD was of the opinion that nothing in the evidence provided demonstrates that it would be objectively unreasonable for the appellants to settle in the city of Lagos or Abuja. [25] In its analysis, the RPD considered the fact that the appellants are university educated and have employment experience that would make it easier for them to find work other than as farmers and, by extension, housing. They would also have access to public health care among other services. [26] The RPD also took into account the documentary evidence indicating that persons who do not fear the authorities are generally able to relocate elsewhere in Nigeria. [27] Lastly, the RPD incorporated into its analysis the fact that the appellants lived in Lagos for approximately eight months before leaving Nigeria without reporting any problems potentially preventing them from remaining there or making it unreasonable for them to settle in that city. [28] The appellants are arguing before the RAD that the RPD's conclusion in this regard was erroneous in that the documentary evidence indicates that persons who do not fear the authorities are generally able to relocate elsewhere, that this possibility is not absolute, and that the RPD did not demonstrate that the appellants [translation] "cannot evade this principle." [29] I do not agree with this submission. [30] First, it is the appellants who bear the burden of demonstrating that the IFA would not be reasonable for them, which they have failed to do in the circumstances. Next, the RPD's decision is not based solely on the documentary evidence outlined above but also takes into account the personal characteristics of the appellants. [31] Analyzing the evidence provided, I draw the same conclusion as the RPD that it would not be objectively unreasonable for the appellants to relocate to the cities proposed for IFAs. [32] In light of the appellants' personal characteristics, I consider that they would be able to find employment and housing there. Both are university graduates, the male appellant in history and public administration, and the female appellant in accounting, and both have significant management experience from both their farm and their sawmill. [33] There are no laws or regulations in Nigeria preventing the appellants from settling in these cities. [34] Therefore, in view of the foregoing, I conclude that the appellants have not demonstrated that the RPD made any errors that would warrant the RAD's intervention. REMEDY [35] For these reasons, I confirm the determination of the RPD that XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX are not "Convention refugees" under section 96 of the IRPA or "persons in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. [36] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) Normand Leduc Normand Leduc February 25, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Rasaratnam v. Canada (1992) 1 FC 706 (CA), p. 710. 2 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (1994) 1 FC 589 (CA). 3 National Documentation Package (NDP) on Nigeria, July 31, 2020, Tab 3.1: Chapter III: Citizenship. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Nigeria. 1999. 4 NDP on Nigeria, July 31, 2020, Tab 7.14: Seeking Security and Stability: An Analysis of Security Responses to Farmer-Herder Conflict in the Middle Belt Region of Nigeria. Search for Common Ground; Forum on Farmer and Herder Relations in Nigeria (FFARN). Chris M.A. Kwaja; Bukola I. Ademola-Adelehin. November 16, 2018. 5 NDP on Nigeria, July 31, 2020, Tab 7.20: Stopping Nigeria's Spiralling Farmer-Herder Violence. Africa Report N°262. International Crisis Group. July 26, 2018. 6 NDP on Nigeria, July 31, 2020, Tab 7.30: The Harvest of Death: Three Years of Bloody Clashes Between Farmers and Herders in Nigeria. Amnesty International. December 17, 2018. AFR 44/9503/2018. 7 NDP on Nigeria, July 31, 2020, Tab 7.31: Fulani herdsmen, including motivations, modus operandi and recruitment methods; raids by Fulani herdsmen in schools in Benin City in October 2016 (2016-August 2018). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. August 10, 2018. NGA106152.E. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-09819 MC0-09820 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 7 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