TB6-09442

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 : TB6-09442 TB6-09443 TB6-09444 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision November 2, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Lesley Mason Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Johnson Babalola Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) and her children, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (the daughter and son), citizens of Nigeria, are appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying their claims for refugee protection. The Appellant is requesting that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside and substitute the negative determination with a positive determination or in the alternative, that the matter be referred back to a different member of the RPD for re-determination. The Appellant is relying on new evidence pursuant to Rule 29 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), and if accepted, she is requesting that the RAD conduct an oral hearing. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant and her children are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. The RAD dismisses the appeal. Background [3] The Appellant alleges that she and her husband are Christians but most people in her husband's family worship traditional gods and practise rituals associated with their religion. [4] The Appellant married her husband in 2010. Her husband's family, led by his uncle, Chief XXXX XXXX (Chief XXXX) did not agree with the marriage and attempted to pressure the Appellant's husband to get rid of her and marry another woman. The Appellant's husband refused. Chief XXXX then made arrangements to get rid of the Appellant himself. [5] In 2013, threats were made against the daughter and son and a kidnapping of the daughter was unsuccessfully attempted. The Appellant was attacked while she drove home from work; only her car was damaged. Since no evidence was available, the police were unable to make an arrest. Unable to make peace with Chief XXXX, the Appellant and her husband relocated to another area of XXXX in XXXX 2013. [6] On XXXX XXXX, 2016, the Appellant was accused by her husband's family members of being a witch. Apparently, the granddaughter of Chief XXXX had died and subsequently an oracle had been consulted. The oracle advised that the only way to prevent further misfortunes was to perform circumcision on the Appellant, the daughter and the son. Incisions were also to be cut on their bodies. A request for protection was apparently made to the police, without success. [7] The Appellant and her children sought refuge in Ogun State at the home of the Appellant's friend, XXXX. The second Sunday after their arrival at the home of XXXX, men came looking for the Appellant. They threatened to burn down XXXX home. XXXX asked the Appellant to find other accommodation. [8] Using Canadian visas obtained in XXXX 2015, the Appellants arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016 and made claims for refugee protection on April 15, 2016. [9] The Appellants had a refugee determination hearing on June 9, 2016. In a written decision issued on June 30, 2016, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD member found that the Appellant was not credible and had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Nigeria. [10] Appeal pleadings were received on August 18, 2016. In her appeal, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its credibility findings and erred in its IFA analysis. RULE 29 [11] Pursuant to Rules 29 and 37 of the IRPA, the Appellant has submitted the following new evidence. a) An affidavit, dated August 19, 2016, affirmed by XXXX XXXX.1 [12] Rule 29 of the IRPA states: Rule 29 (4) In deciding whether to allow an application, the Division must consider any relevant factors, including (a) the document's relevance and probative value; (b) any new evidence the document brings to the appeal; and (c) whether the person who is the subject of the appeal, with reasonable effort, could have provided the document or written submissions with the appellant's record, respondent's record or reply record. [13] For the following reasons, the RAD rejects the new evidence. The Appellant states that XXXX XXXX was only able to complete the affidavit and have it notarized on August 19, 2016. The Appellant provided no clear explanation as to why this was the case. [14] Even if the RAD accepted the affidavit, the RAD would assign no evidentiary weight for the following reasons. [15] As indicated below, the RAD found the determinative issue to be a viable internal flight alternative. According to the affidavit from XXXX XXXX, the deponent resides in Osun State and is the cousin of XXXX XXXX, the husband of the Appellant. Apparently, Chief XXXX visited the deponent's home on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and again on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016 in search of the Appellant and her children. The deponent affirms that he refused Chief XXXX demands to assist him in finding the Appellant and her children. The RAD finds it reasonable that Chief XXXX would search for the Appellants at the home of a relative. The RAD does not find that this is evidence of Chief XXXX reach throughout Nigeria. In addition, the RAD has not suggested as an internal flight alternative that the Appellant relocate to live at the known address of any relative. Request for an oral hearing [16] As indicated above, the Appellant requests that an oral hearing be held under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. [17] The RAD may only convene an oral hearing if there is new evidence that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal, that is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim; and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. Here the RAD has rejected the document submitted under Rule 29 as new evidence. Therefore, the RAD denies the request for an oral hearing. ROLE OF THE RAD [18] As pointed out in the Appellant's submissions, the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision, in Huruglica,2 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by a specialized tribunal, such as the RAD, to decisions of a first-level administrative tribunal. [19] The RAD concludes from its statutory analysis that, with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law), the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. Thus, after carefully considering the RPD's decision, the RAD is to carry out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE Credibility [20] The Appellant submits that the RPD made errors in the assessment of the evidence related to its credibility findings. The RAD finds that the credibility findings do not impact on the issue of IFA. The RAD focuses its decision on the determinative issue of IFA. [21] The RAD took the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines3 into account when considering the facts in this Appeal. The RAD considered all relevant factors, such as the social and cultural context in which the Appellant's allegations arose. In addition, issues of country conditions were examined with consideration of the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines.4 [22] Furthermore, the RAD also took into consideration the Chairperson's Guidelines on Children Refugees. Internal flight alternative [23] The RAD focused on whether the Appellant has an accessible and viable IFA in Abuja. [24] In order to determine whether a viable IFA exists, the RAD must consider a two prong test. The basis for this two-pronged test is the cases of Rasaratnam5 and Thirunavukkarasu.6 [25] Firstly, the Board must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no serious possibility of the Appellant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists.7 [26] Secondly, conditions in that part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for him or her to seek refuge there.8 [27] The RAD finds that the RPD correctly set out the test for an IFA. [28] The Appellant bears the burden of proof to show that she faces a serious possibility or reasonable chance of persecution in the entire country and specifically in the potential IFA areas named. The First Prong [29] The RPD did not accept the Appellant's allegation that Chief XXXX would trace them across the country. The RPD found that the Appellant failed to adduce credible evidence concerning the resources, ability and willingness of Chief XXXX to trace them as far away as Abuja. [30] The RPD found the Appellant's fear of persecution by Boko Haram was a general risk of attack similar to the general population of XXXX and that there was no evidence that Boko Haram would specifically target the Appellant or her children. [31] The RPD did not accept the Appellant's allegations that if she started working as a XXXX XXXX XXXX in a XXXX, she would be brought into contact with people who could potentially identify her. The RPD found the Appellant's concerns speculative at best. [32] The Appellant submits that the RPD failed to make reference to specific documentary evidence by way of affidavits that directly went in the opposite direction regarding the ability of Chief XXXX to locate them. The Appellant also submits that while she, the daughter and the son were hiding in Ogun State they were detected. [33] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by holding her to a higher standard of proof in requiring that she provide definitive proof of the influence of the agents of persecution reaching her in Abuja. The Appellant referred to the jurisprudence where Court found that: I also agree with the applicant that the Board erred by requiring that the applicant show that her uncle and cousin "would be able" to find her in XXXX XXXX as part of its analysis, as this held the applicant to a higher standard than that of a "serious possibility of persecution".9 [34] The Appellant further submits that the RPD failed to engage with her evidence that their agents of persecution had engaged the assistance of the police to search for her and her children, which in turn expanded the reach of their agents of persecution. [35] For the following reasons the RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's submissions. [36] Nigeria is a large country with an area of over 900,000 square kilometres and a population of over 180 million.10 A report from the United Kingdom (UK) Home Office states that Nigerians can freely travel within Nigeria.11 The same report states that the 1999 Nigerian constitution provides for the freedom of movement within Nigeria, and states that every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereto or exit therefrom.12 There is an international airport in Abuja.13 Therefore, it would be unnecessary for the Appellant and her children, upon returning to Nigeria, to travel through XXXX where her husband's family members reside. If the Appellant does not wish to inform others of her presence in the IFA, there is no reason to believe that her location would be found out. [37] The RAD has considered affidavits the Appellant provided for her hearing before the RPD. [38] An affidavit from XXXX XXXX XXXX,14 the Appellant's husband, affirms that Chief XXXX, in the company of the police, traced the Appellant and the children to an apartment in XXXX, Lagos State, in XXXX 2016. Apparently, Chief XXXX was holding photographs of the Appellant and the children at that time. The declarant affirms that the Appellants relocated to the home of the Appellant's friend, XXXX, in Ogun State. The declarant affirms that men came to XXXX home on XXXX XXXX, 2016 in search of the Appellant and the children. The declarant affirms that the Appellant and the children were then advised to leave the country. [39] An affidavit from XXXX XXXX,15 the Appellant's friend, affirms that the Appellant and the children hid at her home in XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ogun State from XXXX XXXX, 2016. The declarant affirms that the Appellant and the children left her home on XXXX XXXX, 2016 after men came looking for them. [40] The RAD has also considered a letter, dated March 28, 2016, written by the Appellant's mother, XXXX XXXX, from XXXX, Lagos State.16 XXXX XXXX states that a "wicked man" and his "thugs" came to her home to threaten her and the Appellant's father again. Apparently this man said he would fish out the Appellant where ever she may be in Nigeria. [41] The RAD appreciates that in XXXX 2016 Chief XXXX, in the company of the police, attempted to locate the Appellants in their apartment in XXXX, Lagos. However, according to the transcript of the hearing, the Appellant testified that she and her husband and children moved to XXXX in 2013. The RAD, therefore, finds it reasonable that the agents of persecution would look for the Appellant and her children at the apartment where they had lived for well over two years. The RAD notes that according to the affidavit from the Appellant's husband, Chief XXXX was accompanied by policemen at that time. The RAD will discuss below the use of the police by Chief XXXX. [42] The RAD also appreciates that people attempted to locate the Appellant and her children at the home of the Appellant's friend, XXXX, in XXXX 2016 and the home of the Appellant's parents, the following month. However, the RAD finds it reasonable that those interested in the Appellant would search for her at the homes of family or friends. The Appellant has obviously not been located and there is no indication in the affidavit of XXXX or in the letter from the Appellant's mother that either provided information regarding the Appellant to the person or persons who attended their homes. The RAD notes that Lagos and Ogun State, just north of Lagos, are both a considerable distance from XXXX,17 the recommended IFA locale. As a result, the RAD gives the affidavits of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, as well as the letter from XXXX XXXX, little evidentiary weight. [43] The RAD finds that the case at hand distinguishes itself from that of Henguva.18 In the case of Henguva, the Court found that the Board erred by requiring that the applicant show that her uncle and cousin would be able to find her in XXXX XXXX, Namibia. [44] In the case at hand the influence of Chief XXXX throughout Nigeria is critical to the Appellant's claim. According to the transcript of the hearing, the Appellant testified that Chief XXXX supplies oil and gas to government sectors, including the police, in and outside Lagos state. The Appellant testified that Chief XXXX has influence with the police. The RAD finds, for the following reasons that corroborative evidence regarding the influence of Chief XXXX can be reasonably expected. [45] The RAD notes that Chief XXXX is uncle to the Appellant's husband. According to the transcript of the hearing, the Appellant's husband remains safe in XXXX. The Appellant's husband provided various documents for the Appellant's claim including the affidavit referred to above. The Appellant was asked during the hearing if she had any documentation to substantiate the extent of the influence of Chief XXXX. The Appellant responded in the negative. Given the size of Nigeria both in area and population, an area of over 900,000 square kilometres and a population of over 180 million,19 as mentioned above, the RAD finds it critical to establish the profile of Chief XXXX, a man who could use his considerable influence, including that with the police, to find the Appellant throughout Nigeria. Given the alleged high profile of Chief XXXX, the RAD finds it reasonable to believe that documentary evidence regarding this agent of persecution exists and is reasonably available. [46] The RAD also notes that the Basis of Claim (BOC) form clearly instructs the Appellant to provide "any documents you have to support your claim".20 [emphasis in the original] The Appellant had the assistance of counsel from the time she made her claim for protection at the Port of Entry (POE).21 [47] The RAD, therefore, finds that it is not persuaded that Chief XXXX wields such influence or wherewithal as to engage persons including the Nigerian police to search for the Appellant and her children throughout Nigeria and, in particular, in XXXX. The Appellant has provided no evidence nor has she alleged that anyone has searched for her since people attended her parents' home in March XXXX inquiring as to her whereabouts. The police [48] The RAD has considered the interest and the ability of the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) to apprehend the Appellant and her children in Abuja. [49] As indicated above, the Appellant's husband affirmed in an affidavit that the police accompanied Chief XXXX to the Appellant's apartment in XXXX 2016. The affidavit corroborates the Appellant's allegations that Chief XXXX used the police to search for her. However, the affidavit does not corroborate her allegations that Chief XXXX could use the police to search for her throughout the country. The RAD has found, above, that there is no persuasive evidence that Chief XXXX wields such influence as to engage the authorities to search for the Appellant throughout Nigeria and, in particular, in Abuja. The RAD notes that the Appellants' apartment is located in XXXX, the same city in which Chief XXXX resides. The RAD, thus, finds that the search for the Appellant by the police is a local matter, at best. [50] The Appellant provided no persuasive evidence that she is a matter of nation-wide interest to the NPF. There is no evidence that the Appellant has a criminal record. The RAD is not persuaded that the NPF throughout the country are searching for the Appellant. Nevertheless, the RAD considered the documentary evidence regarding the NPF. A report from the UK Home Office indicates that the NPF is the principal law enforcement agency in Nigeria with more than 350,000 men and women. NPF is a federal police force covering all 36 Nigerian states and the federal capital territory, Abuja. The report states that a serious lack of resources, including communications equipment, vehicles, skilled leadership, and training, continued to undermine the effectiveness of the NPF. There have been reports of police asking victims of crime to provide vehicles for transportation, or money to buy fuel for police vehicles.22 A recent Response to Information Request (RIR) provides information regarding the poor funding for the NPF which has led to low morale amongst serving officers. 23 The same RIR indicates that the police lack office space, personnel, and facilities for effective performance of its functions. According to another RIR,24 the Inspector General of Police (IGP) reportedly stated that one of the greatest challenges police are facing in Nigeria is a lack of adequate communication equipment. The IGP also indicated that material inputs in terms of funding, crime prevention/control, detection, investigation, traffic-control and accident prevention, communication and data-gathering research needs are inadequate. The RAD is not persuaded that the Nigerian police are competent and well enough equipped or motivated to search for the Appellant and her children throughout the country. [51] Thus, the Appellant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation as to why she believes she would be discovered and/or harmed by the NPF in Abuja. Therefore, the RAD finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant and her children could live in Abuja without serious possibility of persecution. The Second Prong of the IFA [52] The RPD found the Appellant to be a young, highly educated woman with experience working in the XXXX sector. The RPD that the Appellant would encounter no difficulties in language in Abuja. The RPD found that there was no suggestion that the Appellant would not continue to have the support of the Appellant's husband. The RPD concluded that the Appellant would have a viable IFA in Abuja. [53] The Appellant submits that the RPD closed its mind entirely to the documentary evidence that speaks to the challenges of relocation for women in Nigeria, consequently making Abuja an unreasonable IFA. The Appellant referred to objective evidence found in the United Kingdom (UK) Country of Origin Information (COI) Report on Nigeria, in particular to evidence which indicates that "attractive, single women, in particular are very vulnerable to abuse, harassment and trafficking when relocating to another area" and "economic constraints may mean that women wishing to relocate may be required to seek assistance from relatives. In addition, social and cultural constraints may leave women stigmatised in their communities."25 [54] The Appellant also submits that the RPD failed to consider the reasonableness of her relocating vis-à-vis her mental condition. [55] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's submissions. [56] The Appellant has made no submissions regarding the RPD's finding that there was no suggestion that the Appellants would not continue to have the support of the Appellant's husband. The RAD concurs with the RPD's finding in this regard. According to the Appellant's BOC narrative, her husband supported her and the children against his family members.26 According to her narrative, her husband assisted her and the children to leave Nigeria. The applications for Canadian visas indicate that the husband provided a letter of consent allowing the Appellant to travel with the daughter and the son to Canada.27 In another letter to the Canadian Embassy, the husband indicates that he will be responsible for all the financial aspects of their trip, except the accommodation which was offered by a friend in Canada.28 As stated above, the Appellant's husband provided an affidavit29 as evidence for her claim for protection. Also stated above, is the fact that the Appellant testified that her husband is not in danger from the agents of persecution and he remains safe in Lagos. The RAD, thus, finds it reasonable assumes that the Appellant's husband would continue to support them if they returned to Nigeria and settled in Abuja. There is nothing to suggest that the Appellant's husband would not relocate to live with them. According to the visa application and the affidavit provided by the Appellant's husband, he is a real estate consultant. There is no persuasive evidence to suggest that the husband would be at a greater disadvantage in Abuja of finding employment than any other Nigerian man with his work experience. [57] The RAD considered the Appellant's current profile in Nigeria and although the RAD has considered that the Appellant's husband would reside with the family, the RAD finds that the Appellant would be capable of heading the household on her own. The RAD has considered economic concerns for the Appellant and her children. According to a Response to Information Request (RIR) found in the independent documentary evidence, the survival of a family headed by a woman relies on a woman's socio-economic status.30 The same RIR states that the Women's Rights Watch Nigeria project coordinator stated that if women are educated, it is "easier to cope" with running a household without male or family support. [58] According to information the Appellant provided at the port of entry (POE), she obtained a Bachelor of XXXXDegree in XXXX in 2005.31 Her education is well beyond the average number of years of formal education completed by females which the independent documentary evidence indicates is nine years.32 According to information the Appellant provided at the POE, she was employed from 2008 until XXXX 2016 for XXXX XXXX in XXXX.33 A letter from XXXX XXXX indicates that the Appellant was an XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.34 The RAD reasonably assumes that the Appellant and her husband were financially successful given that the family previously travelled to the UK.35 There is no persuasive evidence to suggest that the Appellant would be at a greater disadvantage in Abuja of finding employment than any other Nigerian woman with her education and work experience. Based upon the Appellant's age, education, work experience and language capability stated earlier and the possible, but not necessary, support of her husband, the RAD finds there are no serious social or economic barriers to the Appellant relocating with the daughter and the son. The Appellant's mental health [59] The RPD made no mention of the Appellant's mental health issues. The RAD, therefore, will consider the issue. [60] The RAD has considered a report from XXXX XXXX, a Registered Psychotherapist, B.A.36 For the following reasons, the RAD gives the report little evidentiary weight. [61] While Ms. XXXX is not a medical doctor, psychiatrist, or psychologist, she appears to communicate a diagnosis: "...it is my clinical impression that Ms. XXXX (the Appellant) is exhibiting symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder.37 [62] Section 27 of the Regulated Health Professionals Act, S.O. 1991, Chapter 18 describes the communication of a diagnosis as a "controlled act," not to be performed unless the communicator is so authorized by a health profession Act, or unless the action has been delegated by a person who is so authorized. It does not appear that Ms. XXXX meets either qualification. The controlled act of diagnosis, at S.27(2)(1), is: ...communicating to the individual or his personal representative a diagnosis identifying a disease or disorder as the cause of symptoms of the individual in circumstances in which it is reasonably foreseeable that the individual or his personal representative will rely on the diagnosis. [63] Ms. XXXX letter clearly sets out to communicate a diagnosis, to be relied upon in the proceedings before the RPD. The RAD notes that contravention of the Regulated Health Professionals Act by a psychotherapist is considered professional misconduct.38 The RAD finds that the assessment by Ms. XXXX deserves little weight, as its author is neither a doctor nor a psychologist, and therefore not qualified to make or communicate a diagnosis.39 [64] The RAD has also considered the manner in which the psychotherapist arrived at her conclusions. This process did not involve any tests or diagnostic tools. Rather, it appears that the Appellant participated in a one-hour interview, and the psychotherapist drew her conclusions on this basis. The RAD has no reason to believe that the report was written in the context of an on-going therapeutic relationship between the author and the Appellant. [65] Nevertheless, the RAD has considered the medical care available to the Appellant in Nigeria. The independent documentary evidence indicates that Abuja is a very large urban centre with a population of almost two and a half million people (2015).40 The independent documentary evidence indicates that there are hospitals and medical personnel within Nigeria.41 The Appellant has not alleged that there would be no medical care available to her in the capital city of Abuja to assist her with her present mental state. She has provided no documentary evidence in this regard. The RAD, therefore, finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant could access adequate mental-health care for her mental health issues in the large cities of Abuja if she so chooses. [66] The RAD notes that the Appellant is a Christian.42 She provided as evidence a letter from her former pastor of the XXXX XXXX Church XXXX XXXX.43 The independent documentary evidence indicates that there are about equal numbers of Christians and Muslims in the Federal Capital Territory where Abuja is located.44 The RAD finds it reasonable that the Appellant could find support in a Christian community in Abuja if she so wishes. As stated above, the Appellant's husband, friend and mother provided evidence for her hearing. The Appellant provided no persuasive evidence that she could not continue to receive support from her immediate family members, her friend and her former pastor. [67] Therefore, the RAD finds that it would not be unreasonable, in all circumstances, including those particular to the Appellant, for her to seek refuge Abuja. Summary [68] The RAD finds that the Appellant and her children have a viable internal flight alternative in Nigeria. DISPOSITION [69] Based on the analysis above, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant, the daughter and the son are not Convention refugees nor are they persons in need of protection, as per section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. [70] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Lesley Mason" Lesley Mason November 2, 2016 Date 1 Exhibit P-3, Supplementary Appeal Record, pp. 8-9 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 3 Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline 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. 4 Ibid. 5 Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991. Reported: Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at 710. 6 Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993. Reported: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.) 7 Rasaratnam, supra, footnote . 8 Thirunavukkarasu, supra, footnote . 9 Henguva, Ngeseuako v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7403-12), Tremblay-Lamer, May 8, 2013, 2013 FC 483, para. 16. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) Nigeria (April 29, 2016), item 1.6. 11 Ibid., Item 1.7, section 1.2.8. 12 Ibid., Item 1.7, section 2.8.1. 13 Ibid., Item 1.1. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 283-284. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 285. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p. 286. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (April 29, 2016), item, 1.2. Henguva, supra, footnote 6.19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (April 29, 2016), item 1.6. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 23-45 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 41-135. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, NDP for Nigeria (April 29, 2016), item 1.7, section 2.6.8. 23 Ibid., item 10.6, p. 7. 24 Ibid. item 10.5, p. 4. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 132. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 24-25. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 228-229. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p. 236. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 283-284 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (April 29, 2016), item 5.9. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 56. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (April 29, 2016), item 1.6. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 56. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 234. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 135. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 332-335. 37 Ibid. 38 Ontario Regulation 317/12, under the Psychotherapy Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 10, sched. R. The RAD has previously commented on psychotherapist reports such as this one in X (Re), 2014 CanLII 96038 (CA IRB), X (Re), 2013 CanLII 99308 (CA IRB), and X (Re), 2014 CanLII 95954 (CA IRB). 39 See Boros, Andras Erno v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3915-00), Lemieux, July 26, 2001; Boros, Andras Erno v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3915-00), Lemieux, June 12, 2002. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (April 29, 2016), item 1.6. 41 Ibid. 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p. 20, BOC form, question 1(f). 43 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p. 337. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Nigeria (April 29, 2016), item 12.1. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-09442 TB6-09443 TB6-09444