TB5-13059

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 File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-13059 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision February 24, 2016 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal J.Stephen Schmidt Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He has submitted new evidence in support of his appeal. He does not request an oral hearing. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to determine that he is a Convention refugee at serious risk of persecution on grounds of religion and political opinion. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that, upon return to Nigeria, he will be harmed by members of Boco Haram because his spouse operated a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which had received threats from unknown individuals. [4] The Appellant's claim for refugee protection was heard on July 11, 2014. By a decision of November 4, 2015, the RPD rejected the claim finding that the Appellant has a suitable and viable internal flight alternative in Lagos. [5] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its credibility findings. He further submits that there is no viable internal flight alternative in Nigeria as his evidence, including new evidence submitted on appeal, shows that Boko Haram commits attacks throughout Nigeria and there has been a major intensification of the terrorist threat in Nigeria. ANALYSIS Role of the RAD [6] What is the role of the RAD in considering an appeal against a decision of the RPD? While the Appellant makes no argument with respect to this issue, the RAD notes in Huruglica1 the Court considered the appropriate relationship between the RAD and the RPD. It found that the RAD had erred in simply reviewing the RPD's decision on a standard of reasonableness, rather than conducting its own independent assessment of the Appellants' refugee claims. The Court held that the RAD's application of a reasonableness standard curtailed the tribunal's appellate role, contrary to the purpose of the RAD and the provisions of the IRPA. In the Court's view, the RAD should not even engage in a standard of review analysis; rather, it should consider the purpose of the appellate tribunal, the statutory provisions, comparable expertise, and comparative appellate regimes.2 [7] Justice Phelan stated the following in Huruglica: Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision.3 In conducting its assessment, it can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is an "overriding and palpable error." 4 [8] Considering the recent jurisprudence, including the Court's decision in Huruglica, the RAD will review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of the Appellant's refugee claim, recognizing and respecting the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion. Where the RAD's assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD will substitute its own determination. Admissibility of evidence submitted on appeal [9] Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of his claim or that was not reasonably available, or that he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. It is for the Appellant to make full and detailed submissions in his Memorandum of Argument about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) and how that evidence relates to him.5 a) The Appellant tendered six documents as proposed new evidence in support of his appeal: b) theguardian.com article Heavy casualties feared after Nigerian bomb explosion dated November 17, 2015;6 c) theguardian.com article Terrorist killings up by 80% in 2014, fuelling flow of refugees, report says dated November 17, 2015;7 d) theguardian.com article Nigeria has a new government, but Boko Haram is deadlier than ever dated November 20, 2015;8 e) premiumtimesng.com article Nigeria now third most terrorized country in the world - Report dated November 21, 2015;9 f) sunnewsonline.com article Boko Haram scare: Lagos schools cancel morning assemblies, gates shut dated November 16, 2015;10 and g) Appellant's affidavit sworn on December 14, 2015.11 [10] The Appellant maintains that items a), b), c), d) and e) are all news article that comply with the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA because none of them existed on the date the Notice of Decision was issued by the RPD. He submits that the evidence is recent and material as it relates to attacks by the terrorist group Boko Haram, that he fears, and reports on both the recent activities of Boko Haram and the increase of its prominence as the world's most dangerous terrorist group. [11] Items a), b) c), d) and e) are news articles dated November 16, 2015 to November 21, 2015. They are dated subsequent to the rejection of the Appellant's claim for protection. Each of these items arose after the rejection of the Appellant's claim. Since they meet the test for new evidence according to subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, items a), b), c), d) and e) will be accepted as new evidence in this appeal. [12] The Appellant indicates in item f) that the information he is asking the RAD to consider in his Affidavit was known to him shortly before the RPD rendered a decision in his claim. He also indicates that whether or not the RAD categorizes the information contained in item f) as new evidence within the meaning of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, he submitted it as a result of his intent to give fair and full disclosure to the RAD. [13] The RAD notes that the new information contained in item f) concerns an event that occurred in XXXX 2015, the month before the Appellant's claim was rejected by the RPD. The Appellant has indicated that he became aware of the event before his claim was rejected by the RPD. The event concerns his spouse's operation of a XXXX in Nigeria that is an issue central to his claim. The Appellant was questioned on this issue at his hearing before the RPD. The RPD expressed concern about this issue at the hearing. It would be reasonable to expect the Appellant to have provided new information regarding this issue to the RPD prior to his claim being rejected. The RAD finds that the information in item f) did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's claim for protection. The RAD also finds that the information was reasonably available and the Appellant could reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the information prior to the rejection of his claim. Since the information in item f) does not meet the statutory requirements of subsection 110(4), it will not be accepted as new evidence in this appeal. Merits of the appeal Credibility [14] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by making adverse credibility findings when it had found him to be generally credible overall. He notes that the RPD found that, because his family relocated the XXXX after a threatening incident in 2007 and his wife continued XXXX at the XXXX, it must mean that the threat to him does not exist or has been exaggerated. He argues that his hometown is predominantly Christian therefore it would have made no sense to move to a place where his new area would not be predominately Christian. He also argues that his fear of Boko Haram is related to being Christian and even if he had moved to some other portion of town or another village where the inhabitants are also predominately Christian, Christians are a distinct minority in Nigeria and the entire country has experienced attacks by Boko Haram. [15] The Appellant maintains that his wife's passion is XXXX in the XXXX XXXX, non-Islamic, XXXX XXXX that she operated and she refused to give in to threats and intimidation despite the risk. He argues that this does not indicate a lack of fear but a courage and resistance in the face of fear and is not incredible, unreasonable, or illogical. He submits that there was no reason at all to conclude that the failure to move their XXXX again or stop educating indicates that the threat is overblown or non-existent. [16] The RAD notes that IFA is the determinative issue in this case. Even though the RPD made some findings with respect to credibility, it indicated in its reasons that if it were to believe the Appellant's allegations of risk, the issue of IFA remained the determinative issue. Because IFA is the determinative issue and the RPD's findings on IFA were not impacted by the credibility findings it had made, it is unnecessary for the RAD to address the RPD's credibility findings or the Appellant's arguments with respect to the RPD's credibility findings. Internal flight alternative (IFA) [17] The Appellant submits that he is at a real risk of persecution at the hands of Boko Haram and their followers throughout Nigeria because he is Christian and he and his wife operated a XXXX XXXX XXXX facility and had been threatened. He notes that Boko Haram is identified as the most deadly terrorist group in the world and has allegiance to ISIS, which is anti-Western and anti-Christian. He notes that Boko Haram has declared, and its name is derived from a slogan, that XXXX XXXX is sin. He notes that attacks by Boko Haram had been experienced throughout Nigeria. The Appellant submits that as Boko Haram commits attacks throughout Nigeria, and the new evidence shows a major intensification of the terrorist threat in Nigeria and the largest increase in terrorist deaths ever recorded by any country by the most deadly terrorist group in the world and that private citizens and education facilities suffer the majority of attacks and that Lagos schools are at threat by Boko Haram, there is no viable IFA for him in Nigeria. [18] Although the RAD acknowledges that Boko Haram has been responsible for numerous attacks in Nigeria, the evidence shows that the attacks occurred mainly in the northern states and not in the southern state where the proposed IFA of Lagos is located. The documentary evidence overwhelming demonstrates that the city of Lagos in the southern state of Lagos has been largely immune from Boko Haram attacks. For example, the United States Department of State Report on Terrorism indicates that Boko Haram, conducted killings, bombings, kidnappings, and other attacks in Nigeria, resulting in numerous deaths, injuries, and the widespread destruction of property in 2012. The states where attacks occurred more frequently included Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Kaduna, Kano, Kogi, Plateau, Taraba, and Yobe, as well as the Federal Capital Territory. No terrorist attacks occurred in the southern states of Nigeria.12 [19] Further documentary evidence indicates that, though latent for the better part of the past decade, since 2009 Boko Haram has waged a campaign of extremist, anti-government attacks across much of northern and central Nigeria.13 Human Rights Watch reports that Boko Haram has carried out numerous attacks on churches and Christians in northern and central Nigeria during its campaign of violence. Also, since the beginning of 2012, Boko Haram members have attacked at least 20 schools in northern Nigeria, damaging and in some cases destroying them. A map showing the estimated number of people killed in Boko Haram attacks or clashes between July 2009 and September 2012 illustrates that no people were killed in the Nigerian states south of the Federal Capital Territory.14 [20] Even the documentary evidence pointed out by the Appellant reflects a lack of Boco Haram attacks in Lagos. The article 'Fear is everywhere:' Boko Haram threat keeps abducted Nigerian girls' village awake reports on a wave of indiscriminate bombings, kidnappings and assassinations perpetrated by Boco Haram in the northeastern state of Borno.15 The article Christian area in Northern Nigeria under siege by Boko Haram reports that the predominantly Christian area of Gwoza in Borno state, Northern Nigeria, was under siege by suspected Boko Haram militants, who rampaged through villages, killing residents and torching churches and homes.16 The article 7 terrible countries for Christians reports that Boko Haram vowed in 2009 to rid Nigeria's north of all non-Muslim influence.17 The article Who are Nigeria's Boko Haram Islamists? reports that Boko Haram has killed thousands, mostly in north-eastern Nigeria.18 [21] The new evidence presented by the Appellant also reflects a glaring absence of Boco Haram attacks in Lagos and southern Nigeria. The article Heavy casualties feared after Nigerian bomb explosion reports that heavy casualties are feared after a bomb blast ripped through packed crowds in Yola, north-east Nigeria, days after the president visited declaring that terrorist organization Boko Haram was close to defeat.19 The article Terrorist killings up by 80% in 2014, fuelling flow of refugees, report says indicates that Boko Haram, an insurgency in northern Nigeria that has pledged allegiance to ISIS, killed more than 300 people in Gamboru Ngala, a northern town, in May 2014.20 The article Nigeria has a new government, but Boko Haram is deadlier than ever reports on Boco Haram attacks in northern Nigeria.21 It is stated in the article Nigeria now third most terrorized country in the world - Report that Nigeria for several years now has been battling Boko Haram insurgency which is responsible for thousands of deaths in the northeast of the country.22 The article Boko Haram scare: Lagos schools cancel morning assemblies, gates shut reports that education authorities in Lagos state may have directed schools not to hold normal early morning assembly sessions because of fear of attacks by Boko Haram terrorists. Also indicated is that news went around that Boko Haram sent letters to some schools not to open for academic activities.23 [22] After a review of the complete record, including the transcript of the RPD hearing and the new evidence, the RAD concurs with the RPD finding that the Appellant has a suitable and viable IFA in Lagos. For the reasons that follow, the RAD confirms the RPD's determination with respect to IFA. [23] In assessing an IFA, the Board must apply a two-pronged test cited in Rasaratnam.24 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 a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA. 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 claimant, for him (or her) to seek refuge there. [24] Both prongs must be satisfied to find that the refugee claimant has an IFA. The burden of proof rests with the refugee claimant to show that he (or she) does not have an IFA. The finding of an IFA must be based on a distinct evaluation of a region for that purpose taking into account the refugee claimant's identity. An IFA must be a realistic and attainable option. A refugee claimant cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or to undergo undue hardship in traveling there or staying there.25 [25] The RAD notes that the Nigerian constitution and law provide for freedom of internal movement.26 Thus the Appellant would be free to move around Nigeria relatively freely. There is no indication that Lagos is an area affected by curfews due to terrorist attacks or ethno-religious violence. The Appellant indicated at his hearing before the RPD that he had lived in Lagos prior to 2002. He also indicated that he had lived in Ondo state previously. This evidence supports the documentary evidence indicating that Nigerians are free to relocate within Nigeria. [26] The Appellant indicated at his hearing before the RPD that all Christians in Nigeria are at risk of harm by members of Boko Haram and members of Boko Haram are everywhere in Nigeria. He testified that Boko Haram wants to "Islamitize" Nigeria and impose Sharia law throughout the country. He indicated that Boko Haram is taking Nigeria in bits and is advancing. When asked why members of Boko Haram would want to harm him, the Appellant said that they can harm anybody that is Christian in Nigeria. He went on to indicate that he had written things on Facebook against the group and critical of the president of Nigeria. When asked why he had not provided evidence of this to the Board, the Appellant indicated that he had sent his counsel a couple of his postings the night before his hearing. When asked why he had not mentioned in his Basis of Claim Form (BoC) that he had written his opinion against Boko Haram or if he had just written about crime in general, the Appellant indicated that it had to do with crimes in Nigeria, the ills that occur in Nigeria, and about the children who were kidnapped. He also indicated that he did not mention Boko Haram by name in his writings. [27] The Appellant indicated that the robbery his daughter experienced in Lagos was connected to the problems he had in Ibadan. When asked how he was able to make the connection, the Appellant indicated that the individuals who robbed his daughter had a substance on their body that is only done by people from the northern part of Nigeria, where Boko Haram is from. He indicates in his BoC narrative that the individuals were covered in grease or a Vaseline-like substance.27 The Appellant indicated at his hearing that he was not sure the incidents were connected but it made him wonder. [28] The RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to establish that the robbery his daughter experienced in Lagos was connected to his problems in Ibadan or that members of Boco Haram were responsible for the robbery. No credible evidence was presented to suggest that the incidents were connected. The Appellant even indicated that he was not sure the incidents were connected. There is no indication that any opinion the Appellant expressed on Facebook or elsewhere has come to the attention of Boko Haram. The Appellant indicated that he had opined about the general crime situation in Nigeria and had not named any groups as being responsible. [29] The RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to provide persuasive evidence that members of Boco Haram have the interest to locate and pursue him in Lagos. In addition, he has not provided persuasive evidence on how members of Boco Haram would come to know that he was living in Lagos. The Appellant does not have a high profile in Nigeria and the RAD finds that he could live in Lagos, which has been largely immune to Boco Haram attacks. [30] Based on the totality of the evidence, the RAD finds that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the RPD finding that an IFA in Lagos is accessible to the Appellant. The RAD concurs with the RPD finding, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution in the IFA city of Lagos and that his removal to Nigeria would not subject him personally to a risk to life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture. The Appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation as to why he believes they he would be discovered and/or harmed in Lagos, and therefore there is no reason to believe, on a balance of probabilities, that he would be harmed by those he fears. [31] The RAD considered the reasonableness of the IFA. The test for reasonableness is whether it would be unduly harsh to expect the claimant to move to another, less hostile part of the country before seeking status abroad, as per Thirunavukkarasu.28 This requires an evaluation of the conditions in the IFA as well as the Appellant or similarly-situated persons. Thirunavukkarasu sets a very high threshold for what makes an IFA unreasonable in all the circumstances. The hardship associated with dislocation and relocation is not the kind of undue hardship that renders an IFA unreasonable.29 However, it is not enough for the Appellant to say that he or she does not like the weather there, or that he or she has no friends or relatives there, or that he or she may not be able to find suitable work there.30 [32] The Appellant indicated at his hearing before the RPD that he could not relocate to Lagos. He indicated that people are killed every day in Lagos because of religion; because of Christianity. He indicated that his wife's passion is XXXX and she could not get a job easily due to her age. He indicated that if his wife was to come to Canada, she would seek employment in the field of caring for the elderly as she also has experience in that area. When asked if he could continue his business operation in Lagos, the Appellant indicated that he would prefer to leave Nigeria so he could have peace of mind. He indicated that he was going to turn 61 years of age and did not have peace in Nigeria. [33] The Appellant indicated at his hearing that he had resided in Lagos prior to 2002. The RAD notes that he attended college in Lagos as well.31 This evidence suggests that he is familiar with the cultural issues and norms in Lagos since he lived and worked in the city previously. The Appellant is fluent in English which is the official language of Nigeria.32 He also speaks Yoruba. The Yoruba ethnic group predominates in the southwestern states where Lagos is located.33 Lagos is large city with over 10 million inhabitants. It has an administrative function and is a port city.34 It would be reasonable to expect the Appellant to be able to communicate with others in the official language of Nigeria in the large city of Lagos. [34] The Appellant has three daughters and one son who live in Lagos.35 Although many Nigerians depend upon their family, relying on immediate and extended family is not the only option available to the Appellant. Many Nigerians try to establish other support networks that may complement or in some cases replace the extended family. Examples of such support networks are religious congregations, religious organizations, age grades/sets, political organizations, charities, secret societies and guilds. Many such organizations are expected to aid their members in ways that would be fairly unusual in a western context. The Appellant has alleged that he is a Christian. He has provided a letter from his church indicating that he and his wife are devoted and committed members of the church.36 The documentary evidence indicates that Christians and Muslims reside in about equal numbers in the southwestern states, where Lagos is located.37 The RAD is satisfied that the Appellant will have sources of moral and spiritual assistance and support available to him in Lagos. [35] The RAD notes that the Appellant has college diploma in XXXX.38 He also studied XXXX XXXX and XXXX in the United States of America.39 He has been a XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX for at least 10 years.40 He indicated at his hearing that he assisted his spouse in the operation of a XXXX XXXX in Nigeria. The RAD finds it reasonable to expect that someone with the Appellant's education and experience would be able to obtain employment and accommodation and adapt to new surroundings in the proposed IFA city of Lagos. [36] Once the issue of an internal flight alternative is raised, the onus is on the refugee claimant to show that the option does not exist, by establishing that either of the two tests cited in Rasaratnam41 criteria is not met. The Federal Court of Appeal in Thirunavukkarasu stated that an applicant need only show that there is a serious possibility of being persecuted in the new location or that their removal to Nigeria would subject them personally to a risk to life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture. The RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to show that the IFA option is not available to him. [37] The RAD finds that the Appellant has an internal flight alternative in Nigeria. The RAD finds that the Appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution in Lagos and his removal to Nigeria would not subject him personally to a risk to life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture. Disposition [38] The RAD has found that the Appellant has a viable IFA in Lagos. The RAD has also found that the Appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution there and that his removal to Nigeria would not subject him personally to a risk to life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture. [39] After reviewing all the evidence in the record, including the new evidence and the transcript of the RPD hearing, the RAD has reached the same conclusion as the RPD. The RAD concurs with the RPD that the Appellant has a viable IFA in Lagos. The RAD finds that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. CONCLUSION [40] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Refugee Appeal Division confirms the decision of the Refugee Protection Division and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "M. Pettinella" M. Pettinella February 24, 2016 Date 1 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799, at para. 54. 2 Huruglica, para. 45. 3 Huruglica, para 54. 4 Huruglica, para 55. 5 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, Section 3(3)(g)(iii). 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 46-47. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 48-49. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 50-51. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 52-53. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 54-55. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 56-57. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 125-146, National Documentation Package for Nigeria (14 March 2014), item 7.10: Nigeria. Country Reports on Terrorism 2012. United States. Department of State. 30 May 2013. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 125-146, National Documentation Package for Nigeria (14 March 2014), item 7.14: Nigeria: Boko Haram. European Country of Origin Information Network. 22 August 2013. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 125-146, National Documentation Package for Nigeria (14 March 2014), item 7.12: Spiraling Violence: Boko Haram Attacks and Security Forces Abuses in Nigeria. Human Rights Watch. October 2012. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 641-642. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 654-655. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 657. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 643. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 46-47. 20 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 48-49. 21 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 50-51. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 52-53. 23 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 54-55. 24 Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991; [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at 710. 25 Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993; [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.), at 596-599. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 125-146, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (14 March 2014), item 2.1, United States. Department of State, Nigeria: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013, 27 February 2014, at p. 26. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 38. 28 Thirunavukkarasu, supra footnote 4, at 596-599. 29 M.C.I. v. Ranganathan, Rohini (F.C.A., no. A-348-99), Létourneau, Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000. 30 Thirunavukkarasu, supra footnote 4, at 596-599. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 71. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 125-146, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (14 March 2014), item 1.6, Nigeria. The World Factbook, 4 November 2013. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 125-146, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (14 March 2014), item 12.1, Nigeria. International Religious Freedom Report for 2012, 20 May 2013. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 125-146, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (14 March 2014), item 1.6, Nigeria. The World Factbook, 4 November 2013. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 31. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 543. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 125-146, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (14 March 2014), item 12.1, Nigeria. International Religious Freedom Report for 2012, 20 May 2013. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 71. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 71, 479. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 71. 41 Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991; [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at 710. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-13059