TB9-15112

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-15112 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision August 4, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Elana Rose Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Ugochukwu Udogu 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 (Appellant), a citizen of Nigeria, seeks to appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated May 15, 2019. [2] The RPD rejected his claim for refugee protection because it found an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Lagos and Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The RPD also found that the Appellant lacked credibility. The Appellant appeals this decision. [3] The Appellant submits no new evidence and has not requested an oral hearing. He requests that I substitute a positive determination. In the alternative, he requests that I return the case to a different panel of the RPD for redetermination. [4] I find that IFA is the determinative issue in this case. My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision. After an independent analysis of the record, I find that the Appellant has not demonstrated that a proposed IFA in Lagos is unsafe or unreasonable. BACKGROUND [5] The Appellant fears the Fulani Herdsmen who persecuted his family for their involvement in evangelical activities, burned their property and drove his family into an internally displaced camp in Benue. While the Appellant was in Lagos on route to the United States of America (USA) when the events occurred, he believes that he will be personally targeted by them upon return to Nigeria. The Appellant left Nigeria in XXXX 2017 for a conference in the USA where he remained for 10 months prior to coming to Canada and seeking protection. ANALYSIS [6] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its credibility and IFA assessments. As the determinative issue in this decision is IFA in Lagos, it is not necessary to address all of the Appellant's arguments relating to the credibility findings. I have considered the credibility issues only as they relate to the IFA analysis. [7] I note that a new version of the National Documentation Package (NDP)1 was released after the Appellant perfected his appeal. Pursuant to Zhang, I have considered whether there is any recent information reflecting a change in country conditions, such that would require me to give notice to the Appellant. [8] I have reviewed the information that pertains to IFA, including any information regarding the capacity and interest of Fulani Herdsmen to persecute the Appellant in Lagos, as well as any information related to the reasonableness of an IFA in Lagos. [9] I find that the new NDP does not contain information that reveals a change in general country conditions as set out in Zhang. Therefore, I am not disclosing the new version of the NDP and inviting submissions, despite referring to Item 7.31 contained in the November 2019 NDP. IFA Legal Test [10] There are two parts of the legal test for assessing an IFA. [11] Under the first prong of the test, I must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted, and/or no danger of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFA. [12] Under the second prong, conditions in that part of the country must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, for the claimant to seek refuge there. [13] Once an IFA has been identified, the Appellant is responsible for demonstrating that the IFA is unsafe or unreasonable. Lagos is safe for the Appellant Insufficient evidence that the Appellant has a heightened risk profile [14] The Appellant testified at the RPD hearing that he has been targeted by the Fulani Herdsmen personally, as he was involved in evangelical activities with his cousin, a XXXX who was murdered; and worked with his late father, who was known in the community for being evangelical. He alleges to have an elevated risk profile as a result of this, and believes that he has become a target of a religious conflict between the Fulani herdsmen and Christian community in the state of Benue. [15] The RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant's failure to mention his elevated religious profile in his Basis of Claim (BoC) narrative. The Appellant submits that the RPD was not entitled to draw a negative inference from the Appellant's omission in his BoC as it was a minor or collateral omission.2 He submits that a reasonable explanation was provided for the omission. [16] I have reviewed the audio recording of the hearing, as well as the Appellant's BoC narrative, and find the Appellant's omission regarding his personal evangelical activities to be a material omission that is tied to the core allegation of being at future risk of Fulani herdsman due to that profile. [17] While the Appellant's BoC refers specifically to his late father as a community church leader, working with his cousin with evangelical activities in their community, it is silent on the Appellant's specific involvement. This is a significant omission given all the other details provided in the BoC by the Appellant and it was open to the RPD to find the Appellant's explanation for the omission inadequate. [18] I agree that the Appellant's explanation for the omission fell short of reasonable. The Appellant testified that he included information on his cousin and father, and by extension, as he is a family member, it included him.3 He explained that he stated that they all resided in his father's home when he passed away, so he became a symbol of the head of the house. None of this was in the BoC and it does not address the failure to include himself in a specific identifying way as he did his cousin. By mentioning them and omitting himself, I conclude that the Appellant has embellished his evangelical profile at the RPD hearing to bolster the claim, and the RPD did not err. [19] As the BoC omission undermines the Appellant's profile, the Affidavit of the Appellant's wife,4 stating that Fulani herdsmen have sought the Appellant's location almost two years after his departure, is given no weight, as the Appellant's profile as a local Christian evangelic leader has not been established with sufficient credible evidence. [20] While the Appellant may have a cousin who was a XXXX, and was killed in a mass attack by Fulani Herdsman in Benue state, the Appellant has not established a profile that would make him specifically a target, such that he would be hunted down all over Nigeria and killed, or such that his wife would receive threatening calls after he had been outside the country for over 18 months. This is also not supported by the objective evidence as set out below. Insufficient evidence on the power and reach of agents of persecution [21] The Appellant fears the Fulani Herdsmen. Even had the Appellant been personally known to a Fulani Herdsman, the Appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the agents of persecution have the interest or capacity to locate him in Lagos. [22] The Appellant specifically challenges the finding that Port Harcourt is safe.5 As both Lagos and Port Harcourt were found to be safe for the Appellant, I am considering the objective evidence on the safety and availability of Lagos as a viable IFA, and I conclude that the Fulani herdsmen lack the power and capacity to locate the Appellant and his family in Lagos, even if they had the desire. [23] I acknowledge that there have been devastating attacks perpetrated by Fulani extremists in certain areas of Nigeria.6 The conflicts occur primarily in Nigeria's Middle Belt, including the states of Adamawa, Benue, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Plateau, Taraba, Enugu, Ekiti, Zamfara, Kaduna, Ebonyi and the Federal Capital Territory.7 Lagos is in Lagos state, which is not included in this list. [24] The Fulani herdsmen are nomadic herdsmen who reside in the Southern and Central part of Nigeria, primarily in what is referred to as the country's Middle Belt, and the Fulani herdsmen are usually focused on accessing land for their cattle.8 While the Appellant indicated that the attacks by the Fulani are related to inter religious conflict, objective sources indicate that the farmer/herder violence is neither an ethnic or religious conflict, but a competition for resources.9 [25] Climate change and insecurity have caused the Fulani Herdsmen to migrate southward from their traditional home in the north of Nigeria. This migration has forced the farmer and herder populations to coexist and compete for land and resources. This has led to serious and devastating conflict;10 however, both the Fulani Herdsmen and the local farmers have been responsible for initiating devastating attacks and retaliatory actions.11 [26] In the Memorandum, the Appellant refers to evidence that suggests that the conflict in the Middle Belt between Fulani herders, predominantly Muslim, and the Christian farmers who have had their land stolen and torched, has evolved into a religious conflict as well as agricultural, and has been escalating.12 I note that this evidence also identifies that Rivers is more unsafe than Lagos and Abuja.13 The Appellant submits that the objective evidence establishes that the authorities in Nigeria are unable to protect victims of religious violence.14 While I find that much of the information relied upon by the Appellant is dated, I note that the more recent news article provided by the Appellant,15 dated April 2019, indicates that the herdsmen in Benue and Nasarawa states are ready to work with the Federal Government and agreed to obey the new anti-open grazing laws in the states. This is a positive direction for Benue State. [27] I acknowledge that there have been devastating attacks perpetrated by Fulani extremists in certain areas of Nigeria,16 however, there have not been any such attacks in urban Lagos,17 nor do I find sufficient evidence that the Fulani Herdsmen have the resources to hunt anyone all over Nigeria as the Appellant alleged.18 [28] Even if the Appellant's family were attacked by Fulani extremists, the documentary evidence is silent regarding their capacity to pursue individuals to other cities. If they had the reach and influence, it would be expected to be reported in the NDP, which is a collection of country condition information from numerous reliable objective third party sources. [29] The Appellant alleged that he would be traced through social media, as he would need to use Facebook, or other internet sites to advertise himself, leaving him vulnerable for tracking. I am not convinced by this assertion and find that using a privacy setting on social media is a reasonable accommodation to ensure anonymity, and its necessity does not violate any right or freedom. Privacy settings on social media are not akin to living like a fugitive, according to the Federal Court.19 [30] I prefer the objective documentary evidence contained in the NDP to the newspaper articles provided by the Appellant, which were mostly dated.20 The NDP sources indicate that these agents of persecution generally are not able to track individuals who move to other areas of Nigeria. Neither the Fulani herdsmen nor the closely associated group, the Boko Haram, has the capacity to track "average citizens" like the Appellant. Tracking depends largely "'on word of mouth.'"21 Sources note that even Boko Haram, a violent extremist organization, has a limited and weak ability to track individuals in Nigeria, outside the Middle belt and to the south, with an almost entirely inactive presence in Lagos.22 [31] Lastly, the United Kingdom Home Office Country Information and Guidance for Nigeria23 states that the Nigerian constitution provides for the right to travel within Nigeria. The report also states that internal relocation to escape ill-treatment from non-state agents is almost always an option and, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it would not be unduly harsh for any individual to internally relocate. The United Kingdom Home Office report offers objective evidence on country conditions collected from a variety of reliable sources. [32] While the Appellant states that he will be located and harmed by the Fulani herdsmen should he return to Lagos, I prefer the objective evidence, which does not confirm the Appellant's testimony,24 and find insufficient evidence that the Fulani Herdsmen have a presence in Lagos, or that the Fulani Herdsmen have the capacity or motivation to find and harm the Appellant in Lagos. Lagos is a reasonable IFA for the Appellant [33] An IFA location must be reasonable. Relocation will always be difficult. However, the threshold to determine that an IFA is unreasonable is very high. To be considered unreasonable, the IFA must have conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of the Appellant.25 The Appellant is responsible for providing "actual and concrete evidence of such conditions."26 The Appellant's personal circumstances are a key part of this analysis.27 [34] The RPD found that it would not be unreasonable for the Appellant to relocate to either Port Harcourt or Lagos. The Appellant's Memorandum focuses mainly on the unreasonableness of the proposed relocation to Port Harcourt;28 however, at paragraph 56 of the Memorandum, the Appellant submits that a relocation from one part of the country to another can lead to hardship as an outsider. [35] From my own analysis of the evidence, I find that Lagos is a reasonable IFA for the Appellant and do not find that the RPD erred. The Appellant cited indigeneship and difficulty finding a job and accommodation29 as barriers to relocation. [36] The Appellant is highly educated with a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and an undergraduate degree, both obtained from university studies in Lagos. I note that he completed his high school education in Lagos also.30 As such, the Appellant is familiar with Lagos and has already shown a propensity to integrate into life in Lagos by choosing to remain there for many years. [37] Prior to going to the USA for a conference in XXXX 2017, the Appellant was a XXXX in a school in Nigeria. He has a mobile profession and claims to have strong ties to the Christian community. According to his evidence, his wife travelled to Lagos with the family to bid the Appellant farewell,31 which confirms that Lagos is accessible to her and his family should they wish to join him. He is versatile in getting established in new locations as is reflected in his employment in the USA and Canada since he left Nigeria in XXXX 2017. [38] The Appellant offered no other specific evidence on problems with relocating to Lagos. While country evidence shows high levels of poverty to affect a large proportion of Nigeria's population, I find that given the high educational level of the Appellant, it would not be unduly harsh to expect that he would be able to find employment in Lagos City, even though the process of doing so might be challenging. He has a mobile profession with an educational history in Lagos and work history in Nigeria and abroad. [39] Regarding transportation and travel, Lagos has an international airport and the Appellant could fly directly there without having to travel within Nigeria. The Appellant speaks English which is widely spoken in Lagos. His ability to speak and understand English mitigates against a finding of unreasonableness of Lagos as an IFA also. [40] According to the documentary evidence,32 40% of the population in Nigeria are Christians, and the situation for Christians in Lagos is "normal" and they live "peacefully" with people of other religions. The Appellant, being a Christian, would also have the benefit of the Christian community in Lagos to assist him in his integration into that city. I find that the Appellant's Christian religion mitigates against a finding of unreasonableness of Lagos as an IFA, and may assist him with employment as well. [41] Regarding the Appellant's indigeneship status, there is no evidence in the NDP that the Appellant would be discriminated against, or have trouble in Lagos because he is Urhobo or from the Middle belt. The Appellant offered no spontaneous evidence on any issues that he encountered during the many years that he resided in Lagos and went to study there. [42] It is noted in the objective evidence: Indigeneship status is less important in big cities such as Lagos, Abuja, and Lagos 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 "center 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, 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.33 [citations omitted] [43] I find that that the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that his indigeneship status mitigates against a finding of unreasonableness of relocating to Lagos. His personal circumstances, testimony and the documentary evidence lead me to conclude that relocation to Lagos is not unreasonable, and the RPD did not err. [44] Given the finding that the Appellant has a viable IFA in Lagos, his appeal must fail. CONCLUSION [45] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Elana Rose Elana Rose August 4, 2020 Date 1 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (November 29, 2019). 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 48, para. 17. 3 RPD Hearing Audio Recording, at approximately 00:28:45. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at p. 176. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 52, para 26. 6 NDP for Nigeria (29 November 2019), Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA106152.E, Item 7.31, at pp. 2-5. 7 NDP for Nigeria (29 November 2019), RIR NGA106152.E, Item 7.31. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (29 March 2019), Item 7.14, at p. 4. 9 Ibid, Item 7.14, at p. 5; Item 1.26, at p. 93. 10 Ibid, Item 7.20. 11 NDP for Nigeria (29 November 2019), RIR NGA106152.E, Item 7.31. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (29 March 2019), Item 7.20. 13 Ibid, Item 7.19. 14 Ibid, Item 12.5. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Post-Hearing Submissions, at p. 258. 16 NDP for Nigeria (29 November 2019), RIR NGA106152.E, Item 7.31, at pp. 2 - 5. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (29 March 2019), Item 7.14, at p. 4, map of affected areas. 18 RPD Hearing Audio Recording, at approximately 00:23:12. 19 Rizvan v. Canada (Citizenship & Immigration), 2017 FC 456. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at pp. 128-133; 143. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (29 March 2019), RIR NGA105451.E, Item 7.26, at p. 3. 22 Ibid, at p. 6. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (29 March 2019), Item 1.7, at p. 5, paras. 2.2.2-2.2.3. 24 Boateng, Ewurama v. M.E.I (F.C.T.D., no. 92-A-6524), McKeown, June 1, 1993. 25 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 FC 164, 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), at paras. 14-15. 26 Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 988 (CanLII), at para. 40. 27Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No 1172, [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (F.C.A); Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] F.C.J. No. 1256, [1992] 1 F.C. 706, 140 N.R. 138 (F.C.A). 28 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 57-62 , paras 40-55. 29 RPD Hearing Audio Recording, at approximately 00:45:20. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at pp. 41, 46, 48. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, BOC Narrative, at p. 169. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Nigeria (29 March 2019), RIR NGA105320.E, Item 12.5, at p. 1. 33 Ibid, RIR NGA104216.E, Item 13.1, at p. 9. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-15112 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