TC0-08583

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-08583 TC0-08584 TC0-08585 TC0-08586 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 XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 24, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Dilani Mohan Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Ezinwanne Jacqueline Ozor Conseil des personnes 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] These are my reasons for dismissing the appeal by the Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX (Mr. XXXX), XXXX XXXX XXXX (Ms. XXXX XXXX and their children, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the children). After independently reviewing the record, I find that the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) is correct and that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. BACKGROUND [2] The Appellants claimed refugee protection because they fear they are being targeted by threats and violence because of Mr. XXXX political actions. Mr. XXXX cousin ran for office in the municipal elections in Delta State in February 2019. Mr. XXXX friend ran in Delta State's House of Assembly election in March 2019. Both ran under the banner of the People's Democratic Party (PDP), and both were elected to office. Although he lived in Abuja, Mr. XXXX traveled to his home town in Delta State and participated in a program encouraging fair voting. He also encouraged people he knew to vote for these PDP candidates. After each election and because of his involvement in those campaigns, Mr. XXXX began receiving threatening phone calls, texts, and letters by people he believes are members of the All Progressives Congress (APC). The Appellants were also stalked. Mr. XXXX reported these incidents to the police in March 2019. He followed up with police in April 2019 to report new incidents, but he was told he had to pay money in order to move the investigation forward. Mr. XXXX paid this money to the police. In May 2019, he went to the police to inquire about his file and was again told that he needed to pay more money to further the investigation. After each visit to the police, Mr. XXXX received calls from his persecutors saying that they knew he had spoken with police. In July 2019, while on their way to a naming ceremony, the Appellants were hit by a car, and shots were fired into the air. [3] Following this incident, Ms. XXXX and the children arranged to travel to the United States (US). They left Nigeria on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, stayed in the US for two days and then came to Canada. They claimed asylum on August 27, 2019. [4] Mr. XXXX left Nigeria on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. He flew to Germany because of a work course, and from there, he flew to the US on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 to participate in another related program. He left the US after nine days, arriving in Canada around XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. He stayed in Canada until XXXX XXXX, 2019, and he then returned to Nigeria because his lawyer had told him the police investigation was ongoing. However, as soon as he arrived at his home in Abuja, a neighbour informed him that dangerous looking men had come around asking for him, and he discovered that his home had been burnt down. He sold his property and then left Nigeria for good on XXXX XXXX, 2019 and came to Canada and filed his refugee claim which was then joined with his wife's and children's claims. [5] The RPD rejected the Appellants' claims on March 11, 2020. It found that core elements of Mr. XXXX evidence and narrative were neither credible nor plausible. The RPD found that Mr. XXXX level of involvement in the elections was minor and therefore unlikely to make him a target for retaliation or persecution across Nigeria by opposition party supporters. The RPD found that Mr. XXXX had not established his political participation through reasonably available evidence from his office-holding cousin or friend. The RPD found significant contradictions in Mr. XXXX evidence about the police response to his complaints. It further found Mr. XXXX behaviour, in returning to Nigeria and relying on those police after he had been repeatedly asked for bribes, so inconsistent with the evidence that it was implausible and not credible. It was also found to undermine the Appellants' subjective fear. Finally, the RPD found that there was no evidence to establish that Ms. XXXX was politically involved in any way that would support granting the claim. It rejected Ms. XXXX psychological evidence because of the facts it relied on and found that the photograph of the Appellant's damaged car was inconsistent with the testimony and therefore insufficient to establish the facts of the claim. Arguments on appeal [6] The Appellants argue that the RPD erred in both its credibility and internal flight alternative (IFA) analyses. They take the position that Mr. XXXX did not reavail himself of Nigeria's protection because he only returned on the advice of his lawyer that it was safe to do so. They argue that the RPD did not consider the letter from Mr. XXXX Nigerian counsel or the police report. The Appellants argue that Mr. XXXX failure to claim in Germany and the US should not detract from his subjective fear because it would have been an abuse of process to submit claims there when his wife had already started a claim in Canada. On the subject of credibility, the Appellants argue that even low-level political participation could have brought Mr. XXXX to the attention of his persecutors and that the RPD was wrong to think that Mr. XXXX could not have been targeted if the elected officials were not targeted or harmed. They argue that the RPD did not consider their evidence of their damaged vehicle or Mr. XXXX testimony about asking his cousin for help. The Appellants further argue that the RPD applied Canadian standards and that it failed to consider that police would not openly request bribes or mention that they requested bribes to Mr. XXXX Nigerian lawyer. They also point to factual errors where the RPD described Ms. XXXX as having stayed in the US for ten, rather than two, days. [7] The Appellants have produced new evidence and requested an oral hearing. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION (RAD) [8] I have applied the standard of correctness while reviewing the RPD's decision and have conducted an independent assessment of the evidence before me. NEW EVIDENCE AND THE REQUEST FOR A HEARING [9] The Appellants produced five new documents and have asked that I admit them into evidence. These documents include: (a) an affidavit by Mr. XXXX cousin, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX), dated March 26, 2020; (b) an extract from a police crime diary, dated March 27, 2020; (c) medical report for XXXX, dated April 16, 2020; (d) an email from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Member of the Delta State House of Assembly, dated April 14, 2020; and (e) a list of members of the Delta State House of Assembly, taken from the House of Assembly website. [10] According to the law,1 I can only accept these documents as new evidence if they: (i) arose after the RPD's decision; or (ii) was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or (iii) could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have been brought to the RPD before the decision. [11] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible and relevant before I can accept it.2 Not admitted: List of Members of the House of Assembly [12] The list of members of the Delta State House of Assembly is not new. The Election occurred in March 2019. The Appellants had until at least March 11, 2020, when the RPD made its decision, to submit this evidence as proof of XXXX XXXX election to office. They have not provided a reasonable explanation why this was not possible.3 All of the other documents are admitted XXXX affidavit, the police diary extract, and the medical report [13] All of these documents are interconnected and relate to an incident on March 12, 2020. On this date, which is the day immediately after the RPD made its decision, four unknown men broke into XXXX home in Lagos at 4:00 AM and badly assaulted him, using machetes. XXXX was hospitalized for 13 days before being released on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020. During that time, XXXX was visited by his gatekeeper who told him that the assailants had said they were looking for Mr. XXXX and had heard that he was living with XXXX since he was no longer in Abuja. XXXX also stated that the assailants told him that they would kill him the next time if he did not produce Mr. XXXX. The affidavit is accompanied by a crime diary extract, dated the day after XXXX discharge from the hospital, and a letter from the hospital confirming that XXXX was treated for serious injuries resulting from an assault on March 12, 2020. [14] All of these documents post-date the RPD's decision. They relate to new events which the Appellants state demonstrate that Mr. XXXX is still being sought in Nigeria by opposition party members who are willing to use violence. As such, these documents bring new and relevant information to the appeal. The documents are prima facie credible, and I therefore admit them into evidence. The email from XXXX XXXX [15] The email from Mr. XXXX friend, who is now an elected official, post-dates the RPD's decision. Most significantly, the letter explains why Mr. XXXX was unable to get any corroborative documents from Mr. XXXX before the RPD reached its decision. On that basis, I find that the email satisfies the subsection 110(4) criteria. Because of that explanation, I find the letter brings new and relevant information to the appeal. The email comes from a yahoo.com email address, rather than an official government email address, but I will allow it on the basis that it is prima facie credible. An oral hearing is not required [16] The RAD may hold an oral hearing only when there is new evidence that raises a serious issue about the Appellants' credibility; is central to the decision, and which, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the claim. I find that the accepted evidence does not raise a serious issue with respect to the Appellants' credibility, and I therefore find that an oral hearing is not necessary based on the circumstances and evidence in this case. ANALYSIS [17] I have independently assessed the evidence and find that the RPD was correct. The determinative issue is the credibility of the Appellants' evidence. I find that there are important inconsistencies and contradictions in the Appellants' evidence that go to the heart of their claims and which are not explained away by cultural or other factors. [18] Although the Appellants have argued that the RPD erred in its IFA analysis, I find that the RPD never made any determinations on that issue. And since IFA is not a determinative issue for me either, these reasons will only address credibility. [19] The Appellants have stressed that the RPD did not fully consider their supporting documents, particularly the police reports and letters from Mr. XXXX Nigerian lawyer.4 They have asked that I give these documents full consideration. In doing so, I have noted additional areas where credibility concerns arise. In finding that the issues I am about to address are not new, I am guided by the Federal Court's decisions in Corvil5 and Sary.6 [20] There are three areas where the Appellants' credibility is most negatively affected. The first is in relation to Mr. XXXX interaction with the police. The second is the context in which Mr. XXXX decided to return to Nigeria in XXXX 2019, which includes his failure to claim in Canada at that time. And the third is in terms of Mr. XXXX evidence about his political involvement. The threats to the Appellants, police complaints and the crime diary extract [21] Mr. XXXX evidence is that he began receiving all manner of threats after the elections in February and March 2019. He was sent threatening messages by phone calls, text messages, and letters. He and his family were also followed, to the point that Mr. XXXX wife eventually hired private security. In response to the threats, Mr. XXXX made his first complaint to the police on March 19, 2019. To corroborate this, the Appellants provided a copy of a crime diary extract.7 The following month, Mr. XXXX approached the same local police station in Abuja to follow up on his complaint. He was told by police that he had to pay money to further the investigation, and Mr. XXXX complied.8 He went again to the same station in May and was told that he needed to pay more money, but this time he did not.9 Mr. XXXX sent another letter of complaint to the police on July 23, 2019.10 He also testified that he visited the local police again in July 2019, but this time he was asked to pay a very large sum to proceed with the investigation, and he again did not pay.11 Mr. XXXX further testified that, after each of his visits to the police station in Abuja, he received calls from his persecutors letting him know that they were aware of his visits to the police.12 Mr. XXXX provided letters from his Nigerian lawyer as further confirmation that a police report had been filed and that investigations were ongoing.13 The evidence I have just summarized is inconsistent, and there are concerns that I have about the genuineness of the police report provided as corroboration. Genuineness of the crime diary extract and the reported incidents [22] I find that the police crime diary is not genuine for the following reasons. Firstly, there are obvious issues that appear on the face of the document. The extract does not identify the police station that issued it. The Response to Information Request (RIR) from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) in the National Documentation Package (NDP) indicates that all police reports are made on letterhead paper with the police logo and the police formation that issued the report.14 Although the country evidence indicates a lack of uniformity in the appearance of the letterhead or the logo on police documents, the complete absence of any address, telephone number, or email address for the police station is significant. I also notice the absence of any wet stamps and that, according to the NDP documents, the signature of the signing officer and stamp of the police station should appear on Nigerian police documents.15 The letter that Mr. XXXX wrote to the Abuja Police Commissioner, at the same FCT Command address as the signing officer on the crime diary extract, contains a wet stamp for FCT Command. The absence of a similar stamp on the crime diary extract issued at the exact same station is therefore noteworthy. [23] Additionally, I have concerns about the content of the crime diary extract. Mr. XXXX reported in person to the police in March 2019. The police crime diary extract is dated March 19, 2019. Mr. XXXX letter to the police is dated July 23, 2019. Although the letter and the crime diary extract are dated four months apart, the text of both documents is strikingly similar. This is not a matter of repeated words or turns of phrase. It is nearly entire paragraphs that are copied, word for word from one document to another. Since Mr. XXXX visit to the police in March 2019 was in person, it is unclear why his letter to the Police Commissioner in July would copy the language of the police diary extract. More importantly, the language in the crime diary extract reads as both a copy and summary of all of the information contained in the July 23, 2019 letter. In fact, there is no new information in the July letter either that would distinguish it in terms of the events or incidents that Mr. XXXX had experienced. For instance, Mr. XXXX testified to being attacked in April 2019.16 That incident, which was not mentioned in his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative, also fails to appear in his July letter, which presumably would include references to all incidents that had occurred until that time. [24] I have explained in some detail the multiple issues that I see arising from the content and presentation of the extract. In light of those concerns, the availability of fraudulent documents in Nigeria, particularly police documents,17 is also a relevant and applicable factor. I draw a strong negative credibility inference and find that the police report is not a genuine document. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that it was fabricated to bolster the Appellants' claims. I give it no weight. Implications of the crime diary extract on the other documents related to the police complaint [25] Mr. XXXX July 2019 letter appears to be the formal complaint referred to by Counsel in their February 2020 letter. I note that there is another letter from the same lawyer, dated March 17, 2019, and addressed to the Police Commissioner in Abuja where threats to Mr. XXXX life are also reported. I have already noted that there is an absence of some more noteworthy incidents, such as the April attack on Mr. XXXX in any of these documents. I also note logic inconsistency between these documents. They create a timeline in which Mr. XXXX lawyer notified the Police Commissioner about threats against Mr. XXXX and then indicated they would provide further detail. Two days later, on March 19, 2019, Mr. XXXX went to his local police station and initiated his own formal complaint. Then, in July, the exact same complaint is again sent, more formally through Counsel, directly to the Abuja Police Commissioner. I already noted that the addresses for the Abuja Police Commissioner and the signing officer on the crime diary extract are the same. This suggests that the documents were all being filed at the same place, and it is unclear why Counsel would not simply refer to the existing complaint. I note that, in the formal complaint, there is no mention at all of Mr. XXXX having initiated a complaint in March or to his repeated visits inquiring into the investigation. The July letter, read in conjunction with the lawyer's letter, suggests that the complaint to police was only truly initiated in July 2019. This inconsistency, as well as my finding that the originating crime diary extract is not genuine, causes me to doubt the credibility and reliability of these other documents. I decline to give them any weight in establishing that a genuine complaint was made to the police. Omissions and inconsistencies in the narratives about the police reports, threats and attacks [26] There are, furthermore, notable omissions from the BOC narratives of both of the adult Appellants as well as inconsistencies between them. For instance, neither narrative18 mentions that the police asked Mr. XXXX to pay bribes or that Mr. XXXX received calls from the persecutors after each visit to the police. This is important information that speaks directly to police corruption and the low likelihood of the Appellants' receiving protection in Nigeria. When asked about this, Mr. XXXX testified that he did not think it was information that needed to be included, and he then clarified that he did not include the information because he had no documents to prove that the police had asked for bribes.19 I reject this explanation because the question of state protection is critical to the Appellants' claims. Corruption and collusion with the agents of persecution is a serious factor counting against the availability of protection. And not having corroborating documents to support that allegation is not a valid reason to exclude relevant information. The Appellants were represented by Counsel and therefore should have known this. Moreover, so much of the Appellants' narrative is uncorroborated, but the Appellants nevertheless included statements about various threats and surveillance. The explanation is not only unreasonable given the significance of the omission to the claim, but it is also inconsistent with the Appellants' approach to other information that they chose to include. [27] The adult Appellants are also inconsistent in their evidence about physical attacks. Mr. XXXX testified that an attack occurred in April, but neither of the adult Appellants mention this in their narratives. Additionally, Mr. XXXX narrative makes one vague reference to one attack,20 but during the RPD hearing, Counsel clarified that this was in reference to the incident that Mr. XXXX stated occurred in July 2019.21 Mr. XXXX describes this incident as a car hitting or driving into the car that his family was in, and subsequently four men fired shots into the air. He stated that, two days later, they received a letter explaining why they were not harmed at that time. In contrast, in her narrative, Ms. XXXX states that her near-death experience occurred in August 2019, when a car drove close to her family and shots were fired into the air. [28] The RPD found that the photograph of a damaged car22 that the Appellants provided was inconsistent with Ms. XXXX narrative that the car had not been hit. The Appellants argue that the RPD's finding disregards Mr. XXXX consistent testimony that the car had actually been hit. They provide no explanation for the inconsistency between the two narrative accounts of the exact same incident, either to explain the difference in the date of the incident or the way it occurred. The Appellants were clearly aware of this inconsistency but chose not to address it. Repeating Mr. XXXX version of events is not an explanation. I draw a negative credibility inference generally about this incident. I give no weight to the photograph, and I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the incident with the car did not occur as described by either of the adult Appellants. Mr. XXXX reavailment and failure to claim in Canada in September 2019 [29] The Appellants argue that Mr. XXXX did not reavail Nigeria's protection because, although he returned voluntarily and intended to get protection on the information from his lawyer that a police investigation was ongoing, he did not ultimately get protection. Therefore, they argue, the test for reavailment is not met. [30] I disagree. The Appellants' evidence on this issue is contradictory and messy. On the one hand, I am asked to believe that Mr. XXXX believed in the ability of the police to protect because of his lawyer's opinion and statement that an investigation was ongoing. But on other hand, I have been presented with evidence that Mr. XXXX had refused to pay bribes to the police in May and July to further the investigation. I am also being asked to believe that Mr. XXXX had faith in the police even though, after each of his visits to the police station, he received calls from his persecutors informing him that they had been tipped off about his contact with police. It is within that context that I am being asked to find that Mr. XXXX only learned that police protection would not be forthcoming after he returned to Nigeria in late September and found that people were looking for him and had tried to burn down his house. [31] Mr. XXXX explanation that his lawyer told him that an investigation was ongoing is directly contradicted by his lived experience with officers telling him that an investigation would not proceed unless bribes were paid. Since Mr. XXXX did not pay further bribes, there was no reason to believe that the investigation was actually proceeding. As the Appellants note, police do not openly ask for bribes and so would not likely tell Mr. XXXX lawyer that bribes had been requested. In that context, Mr. XXXX had reason to doubt his lawyer's information. And if the lawyer was unaware about the request for bribes, it is also because Mr. XXXX was not keeping his lawyer informed. All of this causes me to doubt the value of the lawyer's opinion, which I have already found tainted by other credibility concerns. [32] Moreover, there is the matter of the direct information that Mr. XXXX received through calls about the police notifying his persecutors about his visits to the station. I find that a reasonable person would be shocked to learn that kind of information and that this would significantly undermine their faith and trust in police protection. Mr. XXXX behaviour, which wilfully disregards his own personal experience of bribes and renewed threats based on police informing his persecutors about his activities, is inconsistent with his claim of being both afraid and believing in the police's ability to investigate his problem and protect him. I draw strong negative credibility inferences from each of these issues and find that it undermines Mr. XXXX subjective fear and his evidence about his repeated visits to the police and the threats that ensued. [33] I agree with the Appellants that Mr. XXXX failure to claim in Germany or the US should not draw negative credibility inferences, since his family was already in Canada and claiming refugee protection while he was in both of those countries. I do not draw any negative inferences on that basis. However, his failure to claim in Canada is relevant, given my finding that, by September 2019, Mr. XXXX had no reason to believe that he would receive protection in Nigeria. [34] Mr. XXXX stated that, upon arrival in Nigeria, he learned from his neighbour that dangerous looking men were asking about him. His home was also burned, but it was repaired by police, and it subsequently had to be sold so that Mr. XXXX could get money for his family. Mr. XXXX testified that all of this was an escalation in the severity of the attacks against him and his family. I do not see it that way. [35] Mr. XXXX had testified that he and his family had been trailed by unmarked cars, stalked and threatened by phone, text message and letters. I note that, despite the near daily frequency of these threats and the variety in which they were issues, Mr. XXXX has no corroborating evidence. In fact, he testified that, a few days after an attempt to assassinate him and his family in July 2019, he received a physical letter stating that their lives were only spared because of the presence of others who were not targets. That letter was not presented as evidence even though that incident is what prompted Ms. XXXX and the children to flee Nigeria and claim protection within three days of their departure. Even if the letter was lost or somehow destroyed, Mr. XXXX evidence is that he had never intended to seek refugee protection when he first left Nigeria in XXXX 2014. And by complaining to the police about threats, one would presume that he would have saved the phone and texted threats that he received as evidence. But, again, there is nothing before me. [36] On the whole, I find the omissions and inconsistent evidence about the threats and the Appellants' efforts to access protection thoroughly damaging to Mr. XXXX credibility. The absence of any evidence to corroborate the threats that were issued, despite the reasonable availability of that evidence, further detracts from Mr. XXXX credibility as a witness and the credibility of the Appellants' claims about receiving any threats. Mr. XXXX political involvement [37] I find that there are even more reasons to doubt the credibility of the claim, particularly the underlying cause, which is Mr. XXXX political involvement. [38] I agree with the Appellants that the degree to which a person is politically involved is not always the most relevant factor in assessing whether they are being targeted for their political opinion. What is most important is the behaviour of the agents of persecution, who may act unreasonably or illogically. It remains plausible that someone who engaged in solitary or even small-scale political acts could be targeted for those actions. [39] However, Mr. XXXX is not claiming that he was involved in a small way in the elections of his cousin or friend. Although he only participated in each for the day prior to the election and again on election day, his testimony is that, through his involvement with the organization called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, he was responsible for ensuring that the election was not rigged. Additionally, Mr. XXXX evidence is that he is an official member of the PDP party. It is in this context that I have assessed the credibility of Mr. XXXX evidence. [40] The first concern I have is that Mr. XXXX was unable, despite his involvement with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, to clearly describe his role or duties on the day before, and the day of, the election. Mr. XXXX testimony was terribly vague and repetitive. When the RPD asked him why the agents of persecution were so interested in him, Mr. XXXX stated that he had been ensuring the elections were not rigged and that democracy would triumph. He said that the people targeting him saw him as someone who was enlightened and stopping them from rigging the elections and ballot boxes.23 When the RPD asked what he did on the day before each of the elections, Mr. XXXX stated that he tried to sensitize people to the idea that their vote should count and that they should cast their vote to ensure the election was not rigged.24 Then, when his own Counsel asked him to elaborate on his political activity during the elections and pointedly asked what exactly he did to ensure that people were not voting multiple times, Mr. XXXX simply repeated himself and stated that he and other members of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ensured that the votes were counted in the presence of everyone who voted.25 [41] Even if Mr. XXXX was only there as an observer to ensure that votes were cast legitimately, I find that he would have been able to provide more detail about what he was looking for or monitoring. His evidence is that he was a long-time PDP member, politically opinionated and a strong believer in the need for fair elections. These beliefs led to his decision to volunteer with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, an organization dedicated to the objective of ensuring free and fair elections. In light of those strong views, and the motivation behind Mr. XXXX decision to volunteer with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, it is inconsistent that he would be unable to describe in more detail, the role he played and the responsibilities he held in ensuring that the election was not rigged. I draw a negative credibility inference. Summary of findings [42] I have detailed the numerous reasons why the presumption of truthfulness has been rebutted. The Appellants have submitted documents which I find are not genuine and which were fabricated to bolster their claim. I also identified the ways in which the Appellants' evidence is both internally inconsistent and illogical. I do not find that there are cultural or other explanations for these inconsistencies. I find that the presumption of truthfulness has been rebutted. The remaining and new evidence is insufficient to overcome the credibility concerns [43] At best, the photograph26 of Mr. XXXX in a cap with the words "I stand with ATIKU" shows that he is a supporter of the PDP. It does not establish his membership in the PDP, his involvement with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, or his participation as an XXXX at the municipal and House of Assembly elections in Delta State in 2019. [44] The hotel receipt27 shows that Mr. XXXX paid 70,000 naira on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. There is no indication of the duration of the stay. While I accept that it demonstrates that Mr. XXXX stayed at a hotel, it does not establish when he stayed there or the circumstances that led to that stay. [45] The document regarding the sale of Mr. XXXX property in Delta State shows that it was sold on XXXX XXXX, 2019.28 The other property documents show that he held title to that property and had the right to sell it.29 The photograph that accompanies the document shows a home that is partway under construction.30 The photograph alone does not establish that it was previously burnt or that the local police repaired the home. I do not find these documents sufficient to establish that part of the Appellants' narrative. [46] The XXXX XXXX31 for Ms. XXXX was conducted by a registered psychologist. I accept that Ms. XXXX was diagnosed as having symptoms of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, I decline to give much weight to this report because, as the RPD noted, it is only as valuable as the facts on which it is based. Because all of Ms. XXXX fears are based on the threats and violence that flowed from her husband's political activities, and because I have found the evidence of those activities and threats not credible, the connection between the diagnosis in the report and Ms. XXXX experience is Nigeria is severed. [47] The majority of the remaining evidence that was before the RPD speaks to the Appellants' establishment in Canada, Mr. XXXX indigene status and employment in Delta State, and the Appellants identities.32 [48] Finally, there is the new evidence that the Appellants introduced. In considering whether these documents establish Mr. XXXX political profile and the threats against him, I find they are of minimal value. Although the affidavit, medical report, and police report for Mr. XXXX cousin appear, on their face, to be credible, I give them little weight. I accept those documents as evidence that Mr. XXXX cousin was seriously assaulted and injured. However, because I have found that Mr. XXXX evidence about the context and circumstance of previous threats was fabricated, I do not find Mr. XXXX cousin's affidavit and the police report, which relies on that affidavit, to be sufficient to establish the core elements of the Appellants' claims. [49] The email from Mr. XXXX friend is also given little weight. I note the fortuitous timing of the correspondence as well as the fact that it is not accompanied by any identification for the author, XXXX XXXX. Although the signature line identifies XXXX XXXX as a Member of the Delta State House of Assembly and includes what appears to be an official logo, I note that the email is a yahoo.com address. Considered alongside my concerns with the other evidence provided by the Appellants, I find the source and circumstance of this document does not stand up to stronger scrutiny. [50] As a result of all of the above findings, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellants were not pursued or targeted with threats, harassment or assault for any of Mr. XXXX activities before and during the municipal and House of Assembly elections in Delta State in February and March 2019. As a result, I find that the Appellants do not face a serious possibility of political persecution in Nigeria. I further find that the Appellants do not face, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to their lives, or a risk of torture or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. CONCLUSION [51] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (signed) Dilani Mohan Dilani Mohan March 24, 2021 Date 1 Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. 2 M.C.I. v. Singh, Parminder (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96; Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FC 385. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, at pp. 160-161, Appellants' Memorandum, paras 49-53. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, at pp. 157-158, Appellants' Memorandum, paras 39, 42, 44. 5 Corvil, Claubert v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4055-18), LeBlanc, March 12, 2019, 2019 FC 300. 6 Sary, Sovanna Reth v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3451-15), Gascon, February 10, 2016, 2016 FC 178. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 471-472. 8 Audio recording of the RPD Hearing, at 00:32:46 - 00:34:32. 9 Audio recording of the RPD Hearing, at 00:36:56 - 00:38:28. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 473. 11 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 00:38:29 - 00:39:04. 12 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 00:39:05 - 00:41:35. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 468-470. 14 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), Item 10.3, IRB, RIR NGA106379.E, "Documents issued by police during criminal investigations or in response to a complaint; procedures for an individual to obtain a copy of a police report within the country as well as from abroad; appearance of police reports, ...", November 7, 2019, at pp. 6-7, at s. 3. 15 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020), Item 10.3 (ibid.), at pp. 6-7 at s. 3.1; See also Item 10.11, IRB, RIR NGA200340.E, "Documents issued by the police during criminal investigations or in response to a complaint, including their appearance and security features; procedure to obtain a copy; the nature and extent of communications between police stations in the country...", November 6, 2020, at p. 3. 16 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 00:32:46 - 00:34:00. 17 NDP for Nigeria (November 30, 2020) Item 3.11, IRB, RIR NGA106159.E, "Prevalence of fraudulent documents, including whether genuine documents can be obtained using false information; instances of visa application fraud; document verification practices at the Canadian visa office in Lagos (2016-August 2018)", August 28, 2018, RIR, NGA106159.E, IRB, August 28, 2018, at pp. 5-6. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 23-24 and 35-36. 19 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 00:32:46 - 00:41:35. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 23. 21 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 00:42:56 - 00:50:21. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 466. 23 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 01:00:08 - 01:00:53. 24 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 01:00:54 - 01:02:50. 25 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 01:14:16 - 01:16:05. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 465. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 497. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 498. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 499-512. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 513. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 514-518. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 474-490, 523-525. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-08583 TC0-08584 TC0-08585 TC0-08586 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français