MB9-24583

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-24583 MB9-24584 / MB9-25182 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 25, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Susan Brown Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Tina Hlimi Conseil de la|des personne|s en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Appellants, XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant) and her minor children XXXX XXXX XXXX, citizens of Nigeria, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, citizen of the United States, appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated September 25, 2019, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. The Principal Appellant is the designated representative of her minor children. [2] The Appellants are seeking protection from Fulani herdsmen. The RPD found that the Nigerian-born Appellants' claims were not credible and that the United-States-born Appellant was not a Convention refugees or persons in need of protection as he can return to the United States. [3] The United-States-born Appellant is not advancing a claim for refugee protection against the United States. The Nigerian Appellants submit that the RPD made errors with respect to its analysis of the Principal Appellant's amendment of her Basis of Claim Form (BOC). [4] Following my independent review, I find that the United-States-born Appellant can return safely to the United States and the Nigerian-born Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Lagos. For these reasons I find that the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and I dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND [5] According to their Basis of Claim Forms (BOCs),1 the Appellants were born in 1985, 2016 and 2018. [6] In her amended BOC narrative, the Principal Appellant says that her husband is in the XXXX XXXX. Immediately after their wedding in 2012, the Principal Appellant moved to XXXX to join her husband. He attended training in Pakistan and the XXXX XXXX and was sent to XXXX on his return to Nigeria in 2015 and then to XXXX in 2016 to lead "XXXX XXXX XXXX." The Principal Appellant stayed in XXXX with her oldest son. [7] The Appellants' problems started when the Principal Appellant's husband apprehended some of the herdsmen involved in the attacks in XXXX XXXX. He started to receive threatening telephone calls from members of the Fulani herdsman who demanded that he releases their members of be killed and that if he did not heed their warning, his family would be attacked. [8] On XXXX XXXX, 2018 the Fulani herdsmen launched an attack around a community leading to the Principal Appellant's school and she was targeted and became a direct victim. The Fulani herdsmen tried to kidnap the Principal Appellant, but she escaped with the help of local vigilantes in XXXX and was evacuated to the military base and taken to hospital. The Principal Appellant was referred Lagos for treatment because she was pregnant. Concerned about her well-being and need for protection against the Fulani herdsmen the Principal Appellant's husband arranged for her to travel to the United States for medical treatment. [9] The Principal Appellant and older minor Appellant obtained visitor visas for the United States and left Nigeria on XXXX XXXX, 2018. The youngest minor Appellant was born in the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2018 and the Appellants entered Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018. Their original claims were signed on May 29, 2018 and an amended narrative was received on July 30, 2019. The Appellants' claims were heard on August 20, 2019 and the RPD gave its decision on September 25, 2019. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [10] Section 110(4) of the IRPA provides that an appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. In Singh2 the Federal Court of Appeal dictates a narrow interpretation of section 110(4): the conditions set out therein must be met, and there is no room for discretion on the part of the RAD. If the section 110(4) threshold is met, then the new evidence must also meet jurisprudential requirements of credibility, relevance and newness.3 [11] The Appellants are applying to submit a letter dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Hospital XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX which says the Principal Appellant "presented at our facility on [sic] after she was attacked during sectarian fight [sic] at XXXX. She was treated based on her complications. It is not our hospital responsibility to share patient [sic] story."4 [12] The Appellants state that they "obtained this letter because the RPD impugned the Appellant's credibility on the basis of her original letter omitting details about the Fulani herdsmen attack."5 They argue that the new document could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, "[t]he letter was only obtained after the Appellant realized through the RPD decision that the RPD Panel had concerns with her initial medical letter."6 [13] I am not persuaded that the new document meets the threshold requirements of section 110(4) as the event referenced arose before the rejection of the claim. I also have concerns about the credibility of the new document for the following reasons: it contains three grammatical errors; does not reference the date that the Principal Appellant presented at the facility; and does not identify the source of the information about the attack. As detailed below, I find that the determinative issue on this appeal is that the Appellants have a viable IFA in Lagos so the new document is not relevant. The Federal Court is clear that section 110(4) is not to be used to complete a deficient record submitted before the RPD.7 For all these reasons I find that the new document is not admissible as new evidence. STANDARD OF THE RAD REVIEW [14] The RAD reviews decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it. The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing and weighing the oral testimony heard, which in particular cases attracts deference.8 Unless specifically stated below, I have applied the correctness standard. ANALYSIS [15] The RPD found that the Nigerian-born Appellants' claims were not credible and that the United-States-born Appellant can return to the United States and live safely. The specific credibility issues identified by the RPD were inconsistencies and omissions in the Appellants' evidence about central elements of their claims namely what prompted them to leave Nigeria and the kidnapping attempt. The RPD also noted the absence of corroborative documentary evidence, a medical report, which should reasonably have been available and allegations of incompetence against former counsel (Former Counsel) without compliance with the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) Practice Notice - Allegations Against Former Counsel9 (Practice Notice). [16] The Appellants do not dispute the RPD finding about the United-States-born Appellant but submit that the RPD erred with respect to its credibility finding, specifically its analysis of the Principal Appellant's amendment of her BOC. [17] The Appellants submit that "a major issue in this claim was that the RPD unreasonably undermined the Appellant's BOC amendment despite the Appellant's assertion that she did not obtain sound legal advice."10 At the RPD hearing, counsel for the Appellants confirmed that they were alleging incompetence but that they had not complied with the Practice Notice because, although it applied to the RAD, they did not think it applied to the RPD and the Principal Appellant did not want to cause problems for anyone.11 [18] Given the Appellants' ongoing allegations of incompetence against Former Counsel as an issue in this appeal I asked them to comply with the Practice Notice.12 The Former Counsel responded to the Appellants' allegations in a letter dated January 24, 2020 (Former Counsel Response)13 refuting the allegations. [19] Since the credibility issue rests on the Appellants' allegations against Former Counsel which are refuted, I find that the determinative issue is the viability of an internal flight alternative for the Appellants in Lagos. [20] Following my own review of the record, the testimony of the Principal Appellant, the submissions of the Appellants,14 and applying the framework of assessment outlined in the IFA Jurisprudential Guide,15 I find, for the reasons outlined below, that Lagos is a viable IFA for the Appellants. Preamble: IFA in Nigeria [21] Pursuant to section 159(1) (h) of the IRPA, the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board has identified a RAD decision16 (IFA Jurisprudential Guide) as a jurisprudential guide which addresses internal flight alternatives in major cities in south and central Nigeria for claimants fleeing non-state actors. This preamble is adapted from the IFA Jurisprudential Guide and sets out a framework for the assessment of IFA in Nigeria, generally, and specifically in south and central Nigeria where Lagos is located. The Federal Court has recently found that this IFA Jurisprudential Guide does not unlawfully fetter Board members' discretion or improperly encroach upon their adjudicative independence because it repeatedly refers to the need for each case to be adjudicated on the basis of its particular facts.17 The IFA Jurisprudential Guide is only a guide and is not binding. [22] The test for assessing an IFA is two-pronged and is set out in the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Rasaratnam: 18 (1) The Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA. (2) Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claim, for him to seek refuge there.19 [23] Both prongs must be satisfied to find that an appellant has an IFA. Once the issue of IFA has been raised and the potential IFAs have been identified, the burden of proof rests with an appellant to show that they do not have an IFA. The finding of an IFA must be based on a distinct evaluation of the region for that purpose, taking into account the appellant's personal circumstances. An IFA must be a realistic and attainable option. The appellant cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or undergo undue hardship in travelling there and staying there. [24] IFA in Nigeria is often considered by the RPD and RAD. After reviewing the relevant country documentation and jurisprudence, internal relocation in Nigeria is generally considered to be viable for refugee claimants and appellants fearing non-state actors. This framework applies to many types of claims from Nigeria where the stated fear is of non-state agents. The Federal Court has recently upheld determinative findings of viable IFAs in Nigeria in cases where the alleged fear is related to allegations of, for example, witchcraft,20 female genital mutilation (or the refusal to submit one's child to such mutilation),21 forced participation in rituals,22 Boko Haram, threats of domestic violence at the hands of a former partner, Fulani herdsmen, and kidnappers.23 [25] The UK Home Office Country Information and Guidance report for Nigeria states that where the person's fear is of persecution or serious harm at the hands of non-state agents, "relocation to another area of Nigeria is likely to be generally viable depending on the nature of the threat from non-state agents and individual circumstances of the person, and as long as it would not be unduly harsh to expect them to do so."24 [26] In addition, the UK Home Office Country Information and Guidance report for women fearing gender-based harm or violence in Nigeria states, "In general, it will not be unduly harsh for a woman to internally relocate to escape localized threats from members of their family or other non-state actors, especially if single and without children to support, but the individual circumstances of each case will need to be taken into account."25 [27] The documentation indicates that there are several very large, multilingual, multiethnic cities in south and central Nigeria, such as Lagos (population 13.123 million), Kano (3.587 million), Ibadan (3.16 million), the capital of Abuja (2.44 million), Port Harcourt (2.343 million), and Benin City (1.496 million),26 where persons fleeing non-state actors may be able to safely establish themselves, depending on their own particular circumstances. [28] While an analysis of whether a particular appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA under the first prong of the Rasaratnam test is necessarily fact-specific, as a general principle, Canadian courts have held that large urban areas cannot be assumed to be an IFA by virtue of their population size alone,27 and that the distance between the proposed IFA and the location of the persecutors does not in itself serve to establish that the proposed IFA is viable.28 That said, the IFA need not be far away from where the appellant has previously lived: the concept of an IFA does not require that the safe haven be in another city or province than the place of origin so long as it is truly an area in which the appellant can seek refuge from the persecution experienced in their home district.29 Ultimately, the question of whether an appellant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that they face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA will turn on their evidence, keeping in mind the general principles above. [29] In respect of analyzing the reasonableness of a proposed IFA, a general framework for analyzing reasonableness in the large urban centres in the south of Nigeria which are commonly referenced as potential IFAs could be useful, which of course would still require the necessary consideration of any particular appellant's specific circumstances and allegations, as discussed below. As a starting point, the Federal Court of Appeal has held that there is: ...a very high threshold for the unreasonableness test. It requires nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area. In addition, it requires actual and concrete evidence of such conditions. The absence of relatives in a safe place, whether taken alone or in conjunction with other factors, can only amount to such condition if it meets that threshold, that is to say if it establishes that, as a result, a claimant's life or safety would be jeopardized. This is in sharp contrast with undue hardship resulting from loss of employment, loss of status, reduction in quality of life, loss of aspirations, loss of beloved ones and frustration of one's wishes and expectations. The Court has reiterated the importance of not lowering that threshold.30 [30] There are a range of issues that inform the analysis of reasonableness of a proposed IFA with respect to any particular appellant, the most common and prominent of which include: transportation and travel, language, education and employment, accommodation, religion, indigeneship status, and the availability of medical and mental healthcare. In addition, the Gender Guideline31 specifically instructs that decision-makers should "take into account facts including religious, economic and cultural factors, and consider whether and how these factors affect women in the IFA." Each factor is reviewed below as it relates generally to Nigeria, before applying the factors to an appellant's specific circumstances in the proposed IFA. [31] Transportation and Travel: In analyzing the viability of a proposed IFA, consideration must be given to the Gender Guideline,32 which states in part: "in determining the reasonableness of a woman's recourse to an internal flight alternative (IFA), decision-makers should consider the ability of women, because of their gender, to travel safely to the IFA and to stay there without facing undue hardship." Nigeria is a large country with an area of over 900,000 square kilometres in 36 states, and a population of over 170 million people. Nigerians have the right to reside in any part of the country.33 The documentary evidence shows that all main centres are linked by road; in addition, many of the large urban centres boast international airports,34 which mitigate in favour of viability of the proposed IFA in terms of transit and travel for a given appellant without facing undue hardship. [32] Language: English is the official language in Nigeria, and a large percentage of the population speak Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo (Ibo), and Fulani in the major centres, in addition to over 500 indigenous languages.35 The documents note that in public administration, English is the generally accepted language of federal agencies, both in correspondence and in oral communications, because of the wide variety of languages in the country.36 Fluency in one or more of these languages will mitigate against a finding of unreasonableness due to a language barrier in an IFA where an appellant speaks English or the regional languages of Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo (Ibo), and/or Fulani, as appropriate. [33] Education and Employment: While the documentary evidence notes that women face considerable economic discrimination in Nigeria, it also notes that women who are educated and who have a higher social status are more likely to gain employment, and that ethnicity is less of a factor for obtaining work in the South than it is in the North.37 It is worth noting that the total years of education completed on average for Nigerian men is nine years, whereas for women it is eight years.38 Thus, where an appellant has achieved post-secondary education or has meaningful work experience, they may be in a better position than the average Nigerian in terms of securing employment, where such opportunities exist. [34] Accommodation: The documentary evidence indicates that rent can be steep in locations like Ibadan, Port Harcourt and Lagos where the cost of living is high, increasing the challenges for female-headed households without male support to obtain housing.39 The personal circumstances of any particular appellant may make accommodation more or less viable, for instance, where they are able to access support of immediate or extended family or other social networks in or near the IFA who are sympathetic to the appellant's situation, as established by the evidence in any particular case. Access to accommodation is but one factor of several for decision-makers to consider in assessing the reasonableness of a proposed IFA in light of an appellant's individual circumstances. The burden remains on the appellant to demonstrate that the proposed IFA is unreasonable or unduly harsh in their particular case. [35] Religion: The documents indicate that across Nigeria "approximately 50 percent of the population is Muslim and 50 percent Christian," and that they reside in approximately equal numbers in central and southwestern Nigeria.40 Indeed, another source notes that "Muslims and Christians 'live everywhere across the country...'" and that when it comes to the issue of relocation of Christians from the North to large cities such as Port Harcourt in the South, "language and culture would be more important than religion."41 Therefore, when an appellant holds a meaningful affiliation to one of these religions, access to places of worship and other people who share their religious values may weigh in favour of an IFA in that it provides an avenue to establish or develop a social structure tied to the appellant's religious beliefs. [36] Indigeneship: Although the evidence is mixed, it is clear that due to significant migration to large, urban cities, indigeneship is not a significant barrier to relocation in these cities. Objective evidence provides information on point, which states: ...indigeneship status is less important in big cities such as Lagos, Abuja, and Port Harcourt than it is in other places, in terms of access to public jobs or ownership of land, because the indigene population in these areas has been "overwhelmed" by migrants to the cities. He explained, for example, that the establishment of the Federal Capital Territory pushed the indigenes of Abuja further from the "centre of influence." However, he also indicated that indigenous ethnic groups continue to dominate the market for land in Lagos, and that indigenes of the Niger Delta, including in Port Harcourt, have been demanding a greater allocation of jobs in the region's oil industry. Non-indigenes also face discrimination in the field of politics. Nevertheless, the Professor stated that, in other industries, they can generally find work where there is a demand for it.42 [citations omitted] [37] Notably, the source indicated that in other industries, there is a general ability to find work so long as there is demand, without ethnicity or indigeneship hindering this aspect of integration. Therefore, the burden is on an appellant to show that any discrimination that could be faced in Nigeria's large cities in the south on the basis of their ethnicity or non-indigeneship would rise to the level that it would render the proposed IFAs unreasonable or unduly harsh. [38] Availability of Medical and Mental Health Care: Where an appellant advances an argument about the availability of medical and mental health care, due attention will have to be given to whether availability and access to such care would render the proposed IFA unreasonable or unduly harsh in the appellant's particular circumstances. Documents in the National Documentation Package indicate that citizens must pay for services such as healthcare and education, although access to such services can be "difficult for all," in the sense that the difficulty may be affording healthcare and education.43 These difficulties appear to affect all Nigerians, and again, the burden is on the appellant to show that such considerations in their case would rise to a level that would render the proposed IFA objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in their particular circumstances. [39] It is settled law that the concept of an IFA is an inherent part of the Convention refugee definition because a claimant must be a refugee from a country, not from a particular region of a country.44 Thus, the existence of an IFA is fatal to any refugee claim.45 First prong of the IFA test: no serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA [40] The RPD complied with the procedural requirements to raise an IFA before or during the hearing and identified IFA as an issue.46 Since the RPD decision did not address IFA and the Appellants did not make extensive submissions on the issue in their Memorandum of Argument47 they were invited to, and made, submissions to the RAD on an IFA in Lagos.48 [41] The Principal Appellant testified that the Fulani herdsmen kidnap and kill you when you cannot afford to pay the ransom and that even when you pay, they still kill you.49 When asked by the RPD, the Principal Appellant testified that she had not received any threats from the Fulani herdsmen, they did not come to her home and that they had not approached her sister-in-law or her son who remains in Nigeria.50 [42] The RPD asked the Principal Appellant if she had any problems with respect to the Fulani herdsman after she went to Lagos after the attack, and her testimony was not clear. She originally testified that her husband heard from them but did not provide any details when pressed and then said that she did not know if he received any calls.51 [43] When the RPD asked the Principal Appellant if the Fulani herdsmen were looking for her now, she answered that they were looking for her family specifically her and her husband and children but did say how she knew and confirmed that her sister-in-law and son in Nigeria had not been contacted.52 [44] The RPD asked what would prevent the Appellants from living in Ogun State with her family or in Lagos. She said that the Fulani were everywhere and there were attacks by Fulani herdsmen in Lagos and Abuja and along the route. When they want to settle, they don't care who is there and want to dominate.53 The RPD asked the Principal Appellant how she personally would be at risk, and she said they have the means and information to destroy any family and they are always fully armed.54 When asked to explain why the Fulani herdsmen had not approached her family members, the Principal Appellant did not answer the question and then said she did not have an explanation except that her husband and his immediate family (she and their children) were the target.55 When questioned by her counsel, the Principal Appellant testified that the government is not doing anything to stop the Fulani herdsmen, which has given them the opportunity to spread and they are everywhere. She said that the President is a Fulani man and is promoting the settlement of Fulani throughout the country.56 [45] In assessing the risk to the Appellants in Lagos from Fulani herdsmen, I have considered: objective evidence;57 the testimony of the Principal Appellant; the BOC evidence; documentary evidence presented by the Appellants;58 and the Appellants' submissions on IFA.59 [46] The Appellants submit "the fact that there is no viable internal flight alternative available for the Appellant and her children anywhere in Nigeria," citing her amended BOC narrative.60 The Appellants also submit that a map of incidents61 in the objective evidence establishes that Fulani attacks have occurred in southern states. Citing evidence62 about the establishment of herder or Ruga settlements for livestock grazing by the Federal Government, the Appellants submit that the "government of Nigeria is trying to relocate the Fulani herdsmen to each and every part of the country. This means that there would be no viable internal flight alternative available to [the Appellants] in any other part of the country."63 [47] I note that none of the supporting evidence in the form of 15 media articles presented by the Appellants,64 including the article cited on the Ruga settlements, references activities of Fulani herdsmen in the city of Lagos. The map of incidents cited by the Appellants shows that there have not been any attacks in Lagos or Lagos state.65 I have reviewed recent objective evidence, including a recent report by the International Crisis Group entitled "Stopping Nigeria's Spiralling Farmer-Herder Violence"66 and found that while there is evidence that the land-use conflict between herders and farmers which was centred in the North Central zone has been spreading southward,67 there is nothing to suggest that the risks associated with the conflict between herders and farmers affect Nigeria's largest city Lagos. [48] The objective evidence is that Makurdi is approximately 750 km from Lagos and Lagos has a population of more than 13 million.68 The fact that the Principal Appellant believes that the Fulani herdsmen from Makurdi would find her in Lagos does not make it so and does not discharge the Appellants' burden to demonstrate with credible and trustworthy evidence that they would face more than a mere possibility of persecution or risk harm from Fulani herdsmen in Lagos.69 [49] With respect to the first prong of the IFA test, following my assessment of the RPD findings, the arguments of the Appellants and my own review, I find that the Appellants did not demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that they would face more than a mere possibility of being persecuted or risk harm from Fulani herdsmen or the Principal Appellant's kinsmen. Second prong of the IFA test: it is not objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh for the Appellants to relocate to the proposed IFA [50] The issue is whether it would be reasonable, in all the Appellants' circumstances, for them to relocate to Lagos. As detailed below, I have considered the record, the submissions of the Appellants and undertaken an assessment consistent with the framework set out in the IFA Jurisprudential Guide to conclude that it would not be unduly harsh or objectively unreasonable for the Appellants to relocate to Lagos. [51] Transportation and Travel: I find that the Appellants would be able to travel safely to Lagos and stay there without facing undue hardship. Lagos is the largest city in Nigeria and is serviced by an international airport which would allow the Appellants to return directly.70 [52] Language: The Principal Appellant testified and responded to questions in English without interpretation and the Appellants list their language as English in their BOCs. The Principal Appellant also speaks Yoruba.71 The Appellants will not face language barriers in Lagos since English is the official language of Nigeria. [53] Education and Employment: The Principal Appellant reports 1772 years of education including a degree in XXXX and XXXX XXXX.73 The Principal Appellant lists 10 years of work experience running her own business selling XXXX in Lagos and XXXX.74 She testified that she has been working in a factory job in Canada.75 As referenced above, the average total years of education completed for Nigerian women is eight years. I find that with her education and work experience the Principal Appellant is in a better position than the average Nigerian to find employment due to their education and extensive work experience. [54] Accommodation: The Principal Appellant testified that none of her relatives had large enough residences to let the Appellants stay with them.76 The Appellants submit that because the Principal Appellant testified that her husband would not be able to leave the XXXX she would have to be designated a single woman for the purpose of determining hardship.77 I do not agree. The Principal Appellant testified that she lived apart from her husband on several occasions and, although her testimony was not clear the Principal Appellant said that she received some financial support from her husband.78 I find that, as a married woman, with relatives living in the same city, the Principal Appellant would not face the same challenges finding housing in Lagos as divorced or separated women and that finding housing for the family in Lagos would not represent an undue hardship. [55] Religion: The Appellants are Christian.79 There is no evidence that the Appellants would face undue hardship in the practice of their religion in Lagos where the Christian religion is generally practised according to the documentary evidence.80 As detailed above, they will have access to places of worship and other people who share their religious values in Lagos. This could help facilitate their integration in the IFA. [56] Indigeneship: The objective evidence says "indigeneship status is less important in big cities such as Lagos, Abuja, and Port Harcourt than it is in other places, in terms of access to public jobs or ownership of land, because the indigene population in these areas has been "overwhelmed" by migrants to the cities."81 [57] With respect to the second prong of the IFA test, I find that the Appellants did not demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that relocating to Lagos would be unduly harsh or objectively unreasonable in their particular circumstances. CONCLUSION [58] I find that the Appellants have a viable IFA in Lagos. I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no serious possibility of the Appellants being persecuted in Lagos and that it would not be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in all the circumstances for them to live there. [59] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) "Susan Brown" Susan Brown February 25, 2020 Date 1 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, pages 26-80. 2 Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Parminder Singh, 2016 FCA 96. 3 Ibid., and Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 4 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 143. 5 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 198, Appellants' Memorandum, para. 7. 6 Ibid., para. 9. 7 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96. 8 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII). 9 Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) Practice Notice - Allegations Against Former Counsel signed August 27, 2018 effective September 10, 2018 (Practice Notice). 10 P-2, Appellants' Record, page 199, Appellants' Memorandum, para. 13. 11 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of August 20, 2019, Audio Recording 0:58:15-0:59:30. 12 P-3, Appellants' notice to Former Counsel dated January 16, 2020. 13 I-1, Letter from XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX, 2020 (Former Counsel Response). 14 P-4, Appellants' response to request for additional information received January 27, 2020. 15 X (Re), 2018 CanLII 52123 (IFA Jurisprudential Guide). 16 Ibid. 17 Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1126 (CanLII), para. 7. 18 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 1 FC 706. 19 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1994 1 FC 589. 20 Doherty v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 661. 21 Dakpokpo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 580; Egbesola v. M.C.I., 2016 FC 204. See RAD decisions: X (Re), 2016 CanLII 105374 (CA IRB) and X (Re), 2015 CanLII 111326 (CA IRB). 22 Melford-Jowoh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 455. See RAD decision X (Re), 2016 CanLII 106181 (CA IRB). 23 Dibia v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2017 FC 1076. 24 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Nigeria, 30 April 2019, tab 16.2, United Kingdom. Home Office, Country Information and Guidance. Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0 (August 2016), page 5, section 2.2.2. 25 Ibid., tab 16.2, page 7, section 2.4.8. 26 Ibid., tab 16.2, page 5, section 2.2.2. 27 Reynoso, Edith Isabel Guardian v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2110-94), Muldoon, January 29, 1996. 28 Cadena Ramirez, Francisco Jose v. M.C.I., 2010 FC 1276. 29 Jilani, Zia Uddin Ahmed v. M.C.I., 2007 FC 1354, para. 13. 30 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164, paras. 15-16, citing Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589. 31 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Chairperson Guidelines 4:Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Gender Guideline). 32 Ibid. 33 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Nigeria, 30 April 2019, tab 16.2, United Kingdom. Home Office, Country Information and Guidance. Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0 (August 2016). 34 Ibid., tab 16.2, page 9, section 6.3.1. 35 Ibid., tab 16.1, United States, Central Intelligence Agency, Nigeria. The World Factbook. (November 10, 2016), tab 16.5, L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde (July 4, 2017). 36 Ibid., tabs 16.1 and 16.5, Nigeria. L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde. Jacques Leclerc. 4 July 2017. 37 Ibid., tab 16.9, Whether women who head their own households, without male or family support, can obtain housing and employment in large northern cities, such as Kano, Maiduguri, and Kaduna, and southern cities, such as Lagos, Ibadan, Port Harcourt; government.... Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 19 November 2012. NGA103907.E. 38 Ibid., tab 16.9. 39 Ibid., tab 16.9. 40 Ibid., tab 16.12, United States. Department of State, Nigeria. International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 (August 15, 2017), page 2. 41 Ibid., tab 12.6, Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA104679.E, Treatment of Christians who relocate from northern parts of Nigeria by people in Port Harcourt... (6 December 2013). 42 Ibid., tab 16.14, Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA104216.E, Whether a member of an ethnic group can be identified by physical characteristics, manner of dress, or by any other means... (20 November 2012), page 9, section 3.2. 43 Ibid., tab 16.13, Treatment of Christians who relocate from northern parts of Nigeria by people in Port Harcourt [Rivers State]; whether they face linguistic, economic and social difficulties (2012-November 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 6 December 2013. NGA104679.E. 44 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706. 45 Ousmer, Fazia Touileb v. M.C.I., 2012 FC 222, para. 24 citing Pena, Luis Arturo Rocha v. M.C.I., 2009 FC 616 and Lopez, Highlander Guzman v. M.C.I., 2010 FC 990. 46 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of August 20, 2019, Audio Recording 0:23:40. 47 P-2. Appellants' Record, pages 196-207, Appellants' Memorandum of Argument. 48 P-4, Appellants' response to request for additional information received January 27, 2020. 49 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of August 20, 2019, Audio Recording 0:46:19-0:47:19. 50 Ibid., Audio Recording 0:47:20-0:48:00. 51 Ibid., Audio Recording 1:48:00-1:50:30. 52 Ibid., Audio Recording 2:03:35-2:06:00. 53 Ibid., Audio Recording 2:06:00-2:07:35. 54 Ibid., Audio Recording 2:07:35-2:08:39. 55 Ibid., Audio Recording 2:08:40-2:10:25. 56 Ibid., Audio Recording 2:22:35-2:27:00. 57 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 30 April 2019, tab 1.13: EASO Country of Origin Information Report. Nigeria: Targeting of Individuals. European Union. European Asylum Support Office. November 2018. 58 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, pages 227-291. 59 P-4, Appellants' response to request for additional information received January 27, 2020. 60 P-2, Appellants' Record, pages 196 and 197, Appellants' Memorandum, para. 3. 61 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 30 April 2019, tab 7.30: The Harvest of Death: Three Years of Bloody Clashes Between Farmers and Herders in Nigeria. Amnesty International. 17 December 2018. AFR 44/9503/2018, page 5. 62 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, pages 241-253. 63 P-4, Appellants' response to request for additional information received January 27, 2020, pages 2 and 3. 64 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, pages 227-291. 65 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 30 April 2019, tab 7.30: The Harvest of Death: Three Years of Bloody Clashes Between Farmers and Herders in Nigeria. Amnesty International. 17 December 2018. AFR 44/9503/2018, page 5. 66 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 30 April 2019, tab 7.20: Stopping Nigeria's Spiralling Farmer-Herder Violence. Africa Report N°262. International Crisis Group. 26 July 2018. 67 Ibid., page 7. 68 Ibid., tab 1.1: Nigéria. L'Encyclopédie en ligne. Larousse and tab 16.2, page 7, section 2.4.8. 69 X (Re), 2018 CanLII 52123, para. 35. 70 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 30 April 2019, tab 1.1: Nigéria. L'Encyclopédie en ligne. Larousse. 71 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, pages 29 and 51. 72 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, Schedule A, page 148. 73 Ibid. 74 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of August 20, 2019, Audio Recording 2:10:30-2:10:55. 75 Ibid., Audio Recording 2:11:50-2:12:10. 76 Ibid., Audio Recording 2:12:15. 77 P-4, Appellants' response to request for additional information received January 27, 2020, page 3. 78 RPD-1, RPD Record, Hearing of August 20, 2019, Audio Recording, 2:11:00-2:11:50. 79 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, page 29. 80 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 30 April 2019, tab 12.5: Situation of Christians, including those living in northern cities, Lagos and Abuja; state protection (2011-October 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 17 November 2015. NGA105320.E and tab 12.6: Treatment of Christians who relocate from northern parts of Nigeria by people in Port Harcourt [Rivers State]; whether they face linguistic, economic and social difficulties (2012-November 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 6 December 2013. NGA104679.E. 81 Ibid., tab 16.14, Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA104216.E, Whether a member of an ethnic group can be identified by physical characteristics, manner of dress, or by any other means... (20 November 2012), page 9, section 3.2. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-24583 MB9-24584 / MB9-25182 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français