TB9-02801

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-02801 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 October 9, 2019 Date de la décision Panel S. Thompson Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Solomon Orjiwuru 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] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Nigeria, is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated December 27, 2018 rejecting his claim for refugee protection. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF APPEAL The Appellant's claim, the RPD's decision, and the Appellant's arguments before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) [2] Before the RPD, the Appellant argued that he faced a forward-looking risk of persecution in Nigeria because of his refusal to submit his wife and son to traditional cleansing rituals after the Appellant's mother found his wife in a same-sex relationship. The Appellant's family felt the wife's actions brought a curse on the family. [3] As a result, they requested the Appellant bring his wife and son for a cleansing ritual. When the Appellant stated he did not know where his wife and son were, he was told that he himself was expected to participate in a ritual and take an oath to prove his innocence. The Appellant refused but the pressure from his family continued and he decided to leave. [4] The Appellant arrived in the United States (US) on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016 and then in Canada on June 10, 2017. On March 14, 2018 the Appellant was told that his mother had died as a result of his failure to bring his wife and son for the cleansing ritual. [5] The RPD rejected the Appellant's claim (which was disjoined from the claim of his estranged spouse and son after their marriage broke down) on the grounds of credibility. The RPD cited material omissions from the Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) forms and narrative.1 As well, the RPD panel did not find it credible that the Appellant "who was [allegedly] blamed for the deaths of family members, including his mother, would then be recognized in the funeral services and tributes to his mother"2 after her death. [6] The RPD also noted the Appellant's failure to disclose the Nigerian passport on which he travelled to Canada and his ignorance of key details of the arrangements made for his travel to Canada by the smuggler he worked with.3 The RPD found ultimately that the other documents disclosed by the Appellant did not dispel its credibility concerns, and noted in particular that the affiants to affidavits disclosed by the Appellant had not been made available for cross-examination.4 [7] Before the RAD the appellant argues in his memorandum: - First, that the RPD unreasonably expected him "to know by name and be able to recite all the names" of his alleged agents of persecution and in particular that it incorrectly found that he did not know the name of the Chief Priest who was one of the foremost agents of persecution5; - Second, that his inclusion in the documents for his mother's funeral was "plausible when viewed in the context of [his] tradition in Nigeria"6; - Third, that the RPD unreasonably failed to assess his testimony about his travel to North America with the understanding that "decision[s] on what happens to victims of smuggling of refugees across international borders lies in the hands of the agents of smugglers"7; and - Fourth, that the RPD "failed to make a finding" about whether his supporting documents that "it failed to give probative value, if assessed properly, could have independently corroborated [his] claim."8 [8] In a separate application dated July 29, 2019 the Appellant asks the RAD to admit certain items into the record before it as new evidence in accordance with Rule 29 of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules9 ("RAD Rules"). [9] The Appellant has requested that an oral hearing be held in accordance with subsection 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). DETERMINATION [10] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). THE ROLE OF THE RAD [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 with a view to determining whether, as the appellant submits, the RPD erred.10 The RAD will only show deference to RPD findings in situations where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in assessing oral testimony. If the RAD finds that the RPD had a particular advantage, the reasons will indicate as much. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL [12] The Appellant has applied to admit the Notice of Decision and Reasons of the RAD dated June 16, 2019 allowing the appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant's former spouse and their minor son, respectively) into evidence in accordance with Rule 29 of the RAD Rules. The Notice of Decision is attached to an affidavit sworn by the Appellant on July 29, 2019.11 [13] If the new evidence meets the above statutory requirements, the RAD must then go on to assess whether the new evidence is credible, relevant, and new in deciding whether to admit it. The evidentiary status of the RAD's decision in the Appellant's former spouse's appeal RAD Rule 29 does not apply to the document submitted by the Appellant [14] As the decision in the appeal of the Appellant's former spouse and son was made by a single-member RAD panel, it is not binding on the present appeal. Rather, the decision is the RAD's own jurisprudence. It is therefore open to the panel in this present RAD appeal to weigh it as it would any other evidence in assessing the Appellant's forward-looking risk of persecution. [15] I accept the RAD's panel finding that the Appellant's former spouse is a Convention refugee. I do not find, however, that a positive determination of the Appellant's claim necessarily flows from this fact. Both claims were disjoined by the RPD, and while they had a similar factual basis, each claim was ultimately decided (at first and second instance) and supported by different evidence. [16] In particular, the RAD's decision in the other appeal states that an arrest warrant disclosed by the Appellant's former spouse shows that she is being sought by public authorities in Nigeria and faces prosecution in that country because she is bisexual. This, in combination with the RAD panel's independent assessment of the testimony of the Appellant's former spouse, informed its finding that the Appellant's subjective fear of persecution was credible. [17] In determining the present appeal I consider not only that the Appellant is different, but also that the facts in this appeal are somewhat different from those detailed in the RAD appeal of the Appellant's spouse. [18] I find that the Notice of Decision and Reasons of the RAD dated June 16, 2019 allowing the Appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are not subject to the test under Rule 29 of the RAD Rules. [19] I note that on September 19, 2018 the RPD disjoined the Appellant's claim from that of his former spouse and minor son. I have reviewed the copy of the RAD's decision in the appeal of the Appellant's former spouse.12 On December 28, 2018 the RPD rejected their claim for refugee protection. On June 26, 2019 the RAD allowed the appeal of the Appellant's former spouse and son. [20] The Appellant's Rule 29 application states that the June 26, 2019 Notice of Decision by the RAD in Ms. XXXX case "confirms, on the balance of probability that she is a bisexual Nigerian woman who is wanted in Nigeria".13 In light of the foregoing I will consider the document as relevant, non-binding jurisprudence emanating from the RAD. REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING UNDER S. 110(6) OF IRPA Legal test for an oral hearing under s. 110(6) of IRPA [21] When read together, subsections 110(3), (4), and (6) of the IRPA establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this unless there is new 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 decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim.14 Decision on appellant's request for an oral hearing [22] I have reviewed the affidavit admitted under Rule 29 and I find that it does not raise a serious issue with the Appellant's credibility. I therefore decline to hold an oral hearing in this matter. ANALYSIS [23] My determination is based on my independent assessment of the evidence before me. This includes the records prepared by the RPD and the Appellant, an audio recording of the Appellant's RPD hearing on November 30, 2018, and documents contained in the current compilation of the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria. The Appellant's alleged subjective fear of persecution - inability to identify agents of persecution [24] I have considered the Appellant's arguments: that the RPD erred in expecting him to know the names of his agents of persecution; and that it erred in finding he did not know the name of the Chief Priest of the community shrine who was one of those agents. The RPD drew a negative credibility inference, finding the Appellant's inability to name this priest was unreasonable in part because a summons letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2016 disclosed by the Appellant named the Chief Priest as XXXX XXXX.15 [25] According to the RPD the Appellant provided "vague and confusing testimony as to who he was afraid of should he return to Nigeria" despite being "given several opportunities to explain who he specifically feared." The RPD found his testimony "confusing, vague, and evasive", and noted that while he identified "the secretary, XXXX XXXX, and also his uncles named XXXX and XXXX, and cousins including XXXX" in his testimony, "he did not refer to these individuals in his BOC forms or narrative". [26] The Appellant's original BOC narrative16 identifies his family as his alleged agents of persecution17, while his BOC narrative addendum18 refers to "insinuations and accusations" from his "extended family members" and "a meeting of family Elders and the youths" which determined that his refusal to submit his son and former spouse to the shrine for cleansing rituals was "the cause of [his] parents' deaths."19 The addendum also states that "the youths and community members" have been tasked with finding the Appellant, his former spouse and son so that the latter two can be forced to undergo ritual cleansing while the Appellant is forced to swear a ritual oath that he does not know their whereabouts.20 [27] Given that question 2(a) of the BOC form asks claimants to explain "in detail" the facts underlying their claims, and to "[i]ndicate dates, names and places, wherever possible", it was open to the RPD to ask for more detailed information about the Appellant's alleged agents of persecution during the hearing, and to expect that he would be able to testify about the identity or identities of his agents of persecution at a level of detail that would enable the RPD to properly assess his alleged forward-looking risk, and in particular the credibility of his subjective fear of persecution. [28] His testimony about his alleged agents of persecution was as follows: MEMBER: Who do you fear specifically in Nigeria? APPELLANT: I fear my family, the community, because it's a community, you understand. My family, which is part of the community. I fear that if I go back to Nigeria, to there as at today, what is happening, and with the [inaudible], and with the current, um, trend that has taken place, I fear that if I go back to Nigeria today, what they will do to me, I will not be able to- I will not survive it. There is no- I will not survive it. MEMBER: Can you name individuals that you specifically fear? APPELLANT: People from my family, like the community, ma'am like, the, the - 'cause the chief priest wanted - is the one that wants to do this incantation I'm talking about, ma'am. Does that oath-taking. Those, um, things that has to do - those fetish things. So, people [inaudible] - the community, they fear that if I don't prove my innocence, to prove that I don't really know anything, that my wife was really into this and that I don't, I don't know where they are for me to bring them to come and swear to this oath -- MEMBER: So you mentioned the chief priest? APPELLANT: Yeah, the chief priest? MEMBER: What is his name? APPELLANT: The chief priest? MEMBER: Yes. APPELLANT: I think it, I- because, I don't really, the name I don't really know but I only know the secretary, because most times when we do any communication, XXXX XXXX is the secretary of our community. The chief priest is not really somebody you get to meet. Like, it's not really open to all and most of the things we do in the community were open to the secretary, so I really know that of the secretary. MEMBER: You've mentioned that you fear your family and the community. Can you name who of your family you fear? APPELLANT: My families? Like some of my dad's, um, dad's brothers, like Uncle XXXX, Uncle XXXX, and those - like, when I mean the community, it's, it's, it's not all of them that's my family. The community has to comprise of even other people that they are, that lives in our community. Like, it's a community like a village. You understand -- MEMBER: You've -- APPELLANT: -- what I'm trying to say? MEMBER: -- mentioned, you've mentioned two uncles? MEMBER: Yeah, like -- APPELLANT: So what were their names? MEMBER: Uncle XXXX and Uncle XXXX. Those are my, those are my dad's brothers. There are so many relations - so many of our relations that they are really into it, you understand, they want me to come and prove my innocence because they fear that if I don't do it that I've brought a taboo, I've brought a curse to the land - not just them alone. Almost everybody in that community, they are seeing, they are tagging me now, as somebody that has brought [a] curse, that I've brought disgrace, that I've brought some evil things, and everybody is afraid, ma'am, that if this cleansing is not done - APPELLANT: Can you be more specific as to who you fear if you return to Nigeria? MEMBER: I said- that was all what I'm saying, I said my community, like the people in my community, my- my village, some of my uncles, the chief priest- the village in particular, because when, when I talk about the village - when I'm talking about "village", people that is from that community. APPELLANT: So can you name individuals that you fear? MEMBER: No, I cannot, I cannot - I can be giving names, I cannot name [inaudible] like, a full community like a village. They are, they are aware of this thing. That's what all I'm saying. That the XXXX community, they are aware of this thing that happened, it is not something that is hidden. I can't - you understand, you say I should begin to name all, it's like naming all - even people I know, who I don't know who have heard about this whole thing. You understand what I'm trying to say? MEMBER: So do you fear your, your father's elder brothers -- APPELLANT: Yeah. MEMBER: -- Uncle XXXX -- APPELLANT Yeah -- MEMBER: -- and XXXX? APPELLANT: -- my father's elder brothers, even, even my cousins, they are all against me. MEMBER: Can you name the cousins that are against you? APPELLANT: Sorry? MEMBER: Can you name the people that are against you? APPELLANT: Like XXXX [ph.], like XXXX, like Uncle XXXX, um, son, his name is XXXX. MEMBER: Anyone else? APPELLANT: There are so many of them like, I can [inaudible] - like um, XXXX [ph.], there's one they call XXXX, it's a native name, I don't know if you - XXXX. Her name is XXXX. MEMBER: Do you fear the chief priest? APPELLANT: Yeah, I fear the chief priest- most especially, because it's that chief priest- I fear the- that is what I, I, I- like I said before, I fear the chief priest. He even- MEMBER: Do you know his name? APPELLANT: Sorry? MEMBER: Do you know his name? APPELLANT: I can't really pick his name, not like, it's not like something I, I have often - like I told you, most of the things we do in the community is liaising with the secretary of the community. [00:38:35] MEMBER: As part of your materials you've provided a letter of summons. APPELLANT: Yes. MEMBER: Do you know the name of the elder community leader and secretary? APPELLANT: Yes. MEMBER: What are those names? APPELLANT: The- the secretary is XXXX XXXX. There's another chief there, I think one chief, XXXX XXXX [ph.]. But that secretary, why I really know that secretary, because most things we do in the community we relate more with the council secretary. MEMBER: Do you know the elder? APPELLANT: The ... MEMBER: The elder? APPELLANT: The - it's not only one elder. In the community we have - it's like, it's not like one particular elder, we have so many elders. MEMBER: The name of the elder that's indicated in the letter of summons - APPELLANT: I think there's -- MEMBER: - for you to attend on the XXXX of XXXX of - APPELLANT: I think there's one elder - MEMBER: -- 2016? APPELLANT: -- XXXX, one elder XXXX, I don't really - these, most of these elders, it's not like, I don't really know, I don't really know, like, them in particular, like this person, I know this person, but the names, like I said, but, like, that meeting I attended, there's, there was one elder XXXX that was there, then XXXX XXXX the secretary was there, too. MEMBER: And the other individuals, the name of the community leader. Do you know the name of the community leader as indicated on your letter of summons? APPELLANT: The community leader... MEMBER: Yes. APPELLANT: There's one XXXX, there's XXXX XXXX and - because there are so many of them, because sometimes I don't even know, that is - there are so much I cannot [inaudible] differentiate who and who is this, because it's like a community there's no [inaudible] okay, this only, only elder, because when they say elder, we have most of them, but who is mostly called like - MEMBER: Have you - have you reviewed the letter of summons? APPELLANT: Yeah, I read - when they, when they give me, I read it. I read it. MEMBER: So you've mentioned one person's name, a XXXX XXXX. APPELLANT: XXXX, then one -- MEMBER: You just mentioned another name, what was -- APPELLANT: XXXX MEMBER: Could you spell that for me? APPELLANT: XXXX - XXXX is XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX I think "XXXX", XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [inaudible]. These things is our dialect name. I didn't really grow, I didn't really grow up in our village. MEMBER: Who is this person, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX? Who is that? APPELLANT: It's one of the, it's one of the elders, it's one of the leaders in the community- like I told you, it's not just one elder. There are many of them. It's just like the people that sign that particular summons, but it's not just one elder. You understand, like, like my dad for instance, my dad is one who [is] considered as an elder. Like those my uncle, they are considered as elders, but you know, like, not all the elders can sign the letter at the time because most people that's of age, they call them "elders" in the community, but the main people that is, like into the office of administration, is like the secretary, like the secretary - because we communicate more to the secretary than anything. Like, maybe those times we are doing some rural development in the states where we are, where we do meetings. So it's that secretary that is really well known, towards- in terms of communication. MEMBER: Why don't you know the name of the chief priest? APPELLANT: Because I've not really had any, anything - because the chief priest is not really somebody you come across, it's not somebody you see - it's somebody that people fear. Like, when the chief priest comes sometimes, it's long like, I don't, I don't know - I'm trying to, I'm trying, I don't know, I'm trying to paint a picture- the chief priest is not really somebody you see often. Anything that has to do with the chief priest, is this kind of frighten. If you have any, anything to do with the chief priest, there's this kind of fright-the chief priest is not somebody that is doing the, directly interacts with people or has any day-to-day relationship with the people. MEMBER: At part of your narrative why don't you indicate the names of some of the people that you fear - you've told me today about Uncle XXXX and XXXX, and I think someone named XXXX and XXXX - APPELLANT: Yes - MEMBER: - your cousins. APPELLANT: - and XXXX, my cousins, yes - MEMBER: Why don't you indicate these individuals' names in your narrative? APPELLANT: No, what - like, like I was, like I was saying, when I say "I fear these people" it's like, it's just because when you were saying give some names. When I say "community", it's like when the community is against you, I cannot - it, it's, it's very difficult to - like, I cannot even- [inaudible] like, bring all the names of the community people. It's just like, when the community is angry, there is anger, these are people that are really against what they felt it's wrong, what I have done, that I am supposed to go through this thing for me to exonerate myself? You understand? That is why I'm, I [inaudible] when you asked me can you name some people that are really against you, that was why I named these names. Like, when I say "community" there's, it's a large sum of people. You understand what I'm saying? Because this threat we are talking about is a threat to our community, our village. So it's not really specific people, per se [emphasis added].21 [29] In my independent assessment, the bulk of the Appellant's testimony in response to the RPD's request for him to identify his agents of persecution with specificity was evasive and evolving. He was asked to name who specifically he feared in Nigeria, and referred to his family and the community. When asked to name individuals whom he specifically feared, he again referred to his family and community, singling out the chief priest - a man he was unable to name even after having read the summons letter signed by this individual. [30] The RPD then asked him to name who in his family he feared. The Appellant identified his paternal uncles XXXX and XXXX by name, but hesitated to name others, testifying that he had "so many relations", and once again referring to his community in the village and the chief priest. He then testified that he could not name the whole community, which was not what the RPD had asked him to do. He then testified that "even [his] cousins" were against him, and named one, XXXX, before re-iterating his fear of the chief priest, and affirming that he could not name him. [31] The RPD went on to ask the Appellant to name alleged agents of persecution who signed the summons letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2016.22 Despite his testimony that he had read this summons letter he could name only one signatory, the secretary XXXX XXXX. The Appellant testified that a person named "XXXX" was an elder, and was unable to name XXXX XXXX, the elder who in fact signed the XXXX XXXX, 2016 summons letter. [32] Even if I accepted his explanation that XXXX was an elder who attended the first meeting at which the Appellant testified he was questioned by community members, this was not responsive to the RPD's question, which was concerned specifically with the content of the XXXX XXXX, 2016 summons, [33] Concerning the chief priest, the Appellant's explanation that he didn't know this person's name makes no sense, not only because this person's name - XXXX XXXX - is clearly indicated in the letter, but also because the Appellant identified the chief priest as the one he feared "most especially" and the very person who would compel him to perform the oath-taking incantation that he fears. His further explanation that the chief priest "is not really somebody you come across" makes no sense given that this individual signed the XXXX XXXX, 2016 letter that was addressed to him. [34] Even if I accepted the Appellant's testimony that the chief priest would normally have no day-to-day relations with individual community members, given the circumstances alleged by the Appellant I expect that he would know this person's name - particularly if he had read the summons letter as he alleged. [35] When the RPD asked him why he hadn't named his uncles or his cousin, the Appellant's testimony was effectively that the whole community in XXXX was against him and that he had named his uncles and cousins simply to be able to answer the RPD's question, even though in reality he did not fear "specific people per se". Ultimately, the Appellant's testimony was unclear about whether he feared any specific individuals in Nigeria. [36] I find that the vagueness of the Appellant's BOC narrative in identifying his agents of persecution negatively impacts the credibility of his subjective fear of persecution. This adverse impact is seriously worsened by his testimony which was confusing, evasive and internally inconsistent. In particular, the Appellant's inability to name the chief priest who would officiate the oath-taking he fears was inexplicable, given that this individual was named in a summons letter the Appellant disclosed to corroborate his alleged fear of persecution, a letter the Appellant testified he had read. [37] I draw a serious negative credibility inference, and find that the RPD did not err in finding that the Appellant's credibility was undermined by his evidence on this point. The funeral brochure for the Appellant's mother [38] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in drawing a negative inference from the inclusion of tributes from himself and his former spouse in the funeral materials for his late mother. The RPD did not find it credible "that the claimant who was blamed for the deaths of family members, including his mother, would then be recognized in the funeral services and tributes to his mother, and further that his wife, who is wanted by the family, the community, and as indicated in his BOC narrative, the police attending the home, would also be referred to in the funeral services to his mother." The RPD drew a negative inference.23 [39] The Appellant argues that "[w]hile the Appellant's culture may appear implausible to the RPD Member, it may entirely be plausible when viewed in the context of [his] tradition in Nigeria."24 He submits further that the RPD's reasoning on this point is impaired by its reliance on "'North American logic and reasoning,' 'Western concepts,' 'Canadian paradigms,' or 'Canadian standards' in assessing the plausibility of [his] evidence".25 [40] During the hearing the Appellant testified as follows concerning the inclusion of tributes from himself and his former spouse in the materials for his late mother's funeral: MEMBER: As part of your materials you've provided the, um, materials from the funeral service of your mother, which is at page 38 beginning at exhibit seven. APPELLANT: Yeah. MEMBER: [RAD's Note: long silence - RPD's questioning resumes at 01:13:27] If your family members were so adamant for you to come and attend the shrine for the, um, rituals, why are you indicated in the tribute to your mother's funeral services at page 47? Why is your name listed there as part of the tribute to your mother if your family members were adamant in finding you and subjecting you to this? APPELLANT: You know, it's my mum that passed away. Most of these things were done by my elder sister, according to her, like - it's, it happened, like, it happened my elder sister and my other sister had to bury my mum. It's, like, um, a tradition, like, these are things- I was, I was not in Nigeria. I didn't involve those things [inaudible] things that were written on my behalf. You understand what I'm saying. As my elder sisters, they were the people that buried my mum, I was not around. It's not like a community that buried her, because it's my mum. My elder sister was the one that did all the stuff. I was not even there - if you even see, like, the poster it would say "signed by", because I'm his son. I was not there. These were some of the things that, it's like, it's like a cultural, it's like a tradition that, when things like this is happened, it has to be tribute because other people will be coming, strangers will be coming, like... MEMBER: If your family members, um, took this position of regarding your wife's sexual orientation, why is she as well listed in the tribute to your mother's funeral services at page 48? APPELLANT: No, no, no - I'm saying, like, I said, like, it's, like a traditional thing, to me. Because when I was asking my wi - my, my sister was like - normally, it's a cultural thing for them to just put her name there and everything, just to present it like, it's like a funeral arrangement. It was not, like, the community that buried her because other people would come and [inaudible], like, present it like a normal thing. They, they just do-put our pictures there, put all those stuff there and all that, like, as a part of the custom of how they bury people back from our side. Like, it's not like, maybe, it was an, um, it has to do with any relationship with her anymore which, they already know, what's happening. But it's just like the, the norms, how they do, how they conduct a burial where we are from. MEMBER: You mentioned you were afraid of your family members and the community. APPELLANT: Yeah. MEMBER: Why, then, would your wife be included in the tribute to your mother's funeral? APPELLANT: That's what I'm saying, that I don't know. I'm saying it's my sister, the arranged - they were the one that put all these things. I was not a part of the planning, they did all these things. They arranged all these things. They were things that were just done. I was not even there [emphasis added].26 [41] Having directly examined the copies of the funeral materials27, I do not accept the Appellant's explanation. I note that the tributes in the order of funeral service for the Appellant's late mother include under the heading "Tributes" includes personal statements from the Appellant and his former spouse. [42] It is implausible that the statement purporting to be from his former spouse at 14 of the order of service28 would have been included in the order of service by his sister, if there was any truth to the Appellant's testimony that his extended family believed that his wife's bisexuality and his failure to produce his wife and son for ritual cleansing were directly responsible for his mother's death. 29 [43] Given the Appellant's testimony about the seriousness of the taboo violation represented by his failure to produce his former spouse and son to the community for ritual cleansing, it makes no sense that he and his wife would have been included in the order of service for his mother's funeral, since according to the Appellant his failure to produce his former spouse and son for ritual cleansing of the taboo violation that caused his mother's death is seen by the community of XXXX as a deliberate transgression against the community's values. [44] Notwithstanding his argument in the present appeal that references to him and his spouse as part of his mother's funeral rites is culturally normative, I find it implausible that such normative practices would have allowed the inclusion of his name and his wife's name and their respective tribute paragraphs in the order of service. [45] Based on this I draw a serious negative inference concerning the credibility of the Appellant's allegation that he is being pursued by his family in Nigeria because of his failure to present himself for ritual oath-taking and his failure to present his former spouse and son for ritual cleansing. Based on the cumulative adverse credibility findings, which go to the heart of the Appellant's alleged risk, I find that the Appellant does not face a forward-looking risk of persecution from his extended family members. [46] I have considered the RPD's findings concerning the Appellants' travel to Canada and the Appellant's arguments concerning those findings. I find that the subject of the Appellant's travel to Canada via the U.S. is a peripheral issue that does not go to the heart of the claim. [47] My finding that the Appellant does not face a forward-looking risk of persecution at the hands of his family members in Nigeria flows from my finding that there is no credibility to the central allegations underlying his claim. [48] I have also considered the supporting letters disclosed by the Appellant - in particular the letter from the Appellant's older sister.30 This letter was notarized on XXXX XXXX, 2018, more than one month after it was written on XXXX XXXX, 2018. This irregularity in the notarization process undermines the letter's reliability. [49] The letter, which restates much of the content of the Appellant's amended BOC narrative, notes in particular that the community meeting which condemned the Appellant as complicit in his former spouse's evasion of ritual cleansing took place on XXXX XXXX, 2018. When he was asked by the RPD how he knew that his family and community members in Nigeria were still looking for him, however, not only did the Appellant not refer to this letter, he failed to give the date of the meeting even though he was repeatedly asked by the RPD panel how he learned that the community in Nigeria was still looking for him.31 For these reasons I assign the notarized letter from the Appellant's sister XXXX XXXX little weight. [50] I also give little weight to another letter from XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX, 201732 as this unsworn letter speaks of the allegations underlying the Appellant's claim in vague terms, referring to "the same-sex sexual act that Mrs. XXXX was caught in" without specifying when the incident in question took place, or detailing how the author conveyed to the Appellant "information" about the "mounting pressure" from the community in Nigeria directing him to prove his innocence of his former spouse's misdeeds. [51] I also give little weight to the affidavit of death sworn by XXXX XXXX, as neither the date on which the document was sworn nor the signature of the commissioner of oaths and the court stamps are clearly indicated on the document itself. [52] The XXXX XXXX, 2017 letter from the Appellant's former sister-in-law XXXX XXXX XXXX33 warrants very little weight as it refers in vague and non-specific terms to the "predicament" faced by the Appellant's former spouse in Nigeria without ever mentioning her own sister's sexual orientation. [53] The XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 letter from the Appellant's late mother XXXX XXXX XXXX34 does not support the Appellant's allegation that he himself is at risk in Nigeria, as the letter states only that the Appellant's family "resolved that she must present herself and her son XXXX for cleansing, and for her to take an oath of infidelity and appeasement". The letter fails to explain how the situation it describes raises any forward-looking risk for the Appellant himself. I therefore give the letter very little weight. For the same reasons the XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 letter from the Appellant's uncle XXXX XXXX35 warrants very little weight. [54] The letter36 and affidavit37 of XXXX XXXX, both state that the Appellant belongs to the Lagos Branch of the XXXX XXXX XXXX. Neither document refers to the allegations at the heart of the Appellant's claim, and I accordingly give them very little weight for the purpose of corroborating the Appellant's alleged forward-looking risk. [55] Having carefully examined the Appellant's credibility and found it to be wanting, I also find that none of the supporting letters disclosed by the Appellant are sufficient to set aside my serious credibility concerns. [56] I also consider that the Appellant's separation from his former spouse is a material change in his personal circumstances that militates against a finding that the authorities in Nigeria would find the Appellant liable under any laws in Nigeria that criminalise same-sex activity and same-sex marriage.38 I find that the Appellant does not face a forward- looking risk of persecution from public authorities in Nigeria. CONCLUSION [57] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). (signed) "S. Thompson" S. Thompson October 9, 2019 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, pp. 6-7, at para. 8. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 9 at para. 11. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, pp. 7-8 at paras. 9-10. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 9 at para. 12. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 12 at para. 16. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 14 at para. 22. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 13 at para. 20. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 16 at para. 26. 9 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257. 10 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 11 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 Application, dated July 29, 2019. 12 On August 22, 2019 the RAD Registry received a copy of the written consent to disclose third-party information from the Appellant's former spouse (Exhibit P-4). 13 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Rule 29 Application Record dated July 29, 2019, p. 2. 14 See Malambu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 763 at paras. 28-36 and 59. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 7 at para. 8. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, pp. 13-16. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, pp. 14 (lines 39, 55, 57) to 15 (lines 69, 78, 90). 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 85-86. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 86 (lines 99, 102-105-107). 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 86 (lines 107-112). 21 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file TB7-12026 on November 30, 2018 from timestamps 00:34:11 to 00:43:42. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 54. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, pp. 8-9 at para. 11. 24 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 14 at para. 22. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 14 at para. 23. 26 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file TB7-12026 on November 30, 2018 from timestamps 01:12:17 to 01:16:16. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, pp. 95-116. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, p. 111. 29 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file TB7-12026 on November 30, 2018 from timestamps 01:06:21 to 01:12:03. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, pp. 92-93. 31 Audio recording of hearing in RPD file TB7-12026 on November 30, 2018 from timestamps 01:06:21 to 01:12:03. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 58. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 56. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 60. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 65. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, p. 122. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, p. 119-120. 38 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (20 August 2019), item 6.12, United Kingdom. Home Office, April 2019, pp. 10-12 at paras. 3.2 and 3.3. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-02801 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 20 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français