TB8-05170

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-05170 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 Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 19, 2019 Date de la décision Panel D. Lewis Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Joan Amanfoh Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF APPEAL [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Nigeria, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her claim for refugee protection. The Appellant alleges that she fears return to Nigeria because her late husband's family, and members of her community, will force her to return to his brother whom she was forced to marry, and who abused her prior to their separation in 2010. [2] The RPD rejected the Appellant's claim because it found that she had viable internal flight alternatives (IFAs) in Lagos and Abuja. The Appellant alleges that the RPD erred because it did not consider: (1) evidence indicating that it would be unreasonable for a single woman to find employment, housing and live in either IFA without a risk of discrimination and violence; and (2) the particular circumstances of the Appellant and the Chairperson Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.1 The Appellant alleges that the IFAs proposed by the RPD are not safe and reasonable and therefore she does not have an IFA anywhere in Nigeria. [3] For the reasons that follow, I find that the RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant has not established that, on a balance of probabilities, the identified IFAs of Lagos and Abuja are not viable. Therefore, I find that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. As a result, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD. DETERMINATION [4] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS Role of the RAD [5] The RAD reviews RPD decisions on a standard of correctness. In limited circumstances, the RPD may have a meaningful advantage over the RAD in assessing evidence that was before the RPD. In those cases, the RAD will show deference to the RPD. In this appeal, I have applied the correctness standard unless specifically stated otherwise. Merits of the Appeal [6] The following test, set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Rasaratnam,2 is used to evaluate whether or not an appellant has a viable IFA: (1) The Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, in the IFA. (2) Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claim, for the claimant to seek refuge there. [7] In order to be granted asylum, a claimant must be a refugee from a country not from a region of a country.3 Once an IFA has been identified, the burden is on the claimant to demonstrate that either of the prongs of the test are not met. The Board has issued a jurisprudential guide addressing factors to consider when assessing the viability of an IFA in major cities in south and central Nigeria for claimants fleeing non-state actors.4 The facts related to the jurisprudential guide are similar to those in this appeal. Both cases concern Nigerian women who allege that they fear return to Nigeria because of forced marriage. The RPD did not err when it found there is no serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted in Lagos or Abuja. [8] The RPD was correct to find that neither the objective documentation nor the Appellant's evidence demonstrated a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted or subjected to a risk to life, or of cruel and unusual treatment, punishment or torture in Lagos or Abuja. [9] The Appellant claims that the RPD's IFA finding is speculative. She submits that the RPD erred because it failed to address vital documents she submitted, which demonstrate that she is very popular in her community and would be in danger in Nigeria. These documents include: photographs of the Appellant and her late husband with foreign delegates; photographs of the Appellant at various local events; letters of condolence from local and foreign delegates and the justice department of Abia state; a judgement against her from her community's king;5 affidavits from the Appellant's uncle6 and brother;7 a letter from counselling services for her trauma from her abusive relationship; and a medical certificate confirming injuries she sustained in 2010. [10] The RPD did not address these pieces of evidence separately. Rather, it concluded that, given the totality of the evidence, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would not be located by her alleged persecutors in Lagos or Abuja, which are in different states and hundreds of kilometres away from her community in Abia. I have independently assessed each of the documents listed above and they appear to be credible on a balance of probabilities. However, I agree with the RPD that the evidence, including these documents, does not establish a serious possibility that the Appellant will be persecuted in the identified IFA. [11] I find that the photographs and letters of condolence demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant and her late husband were well known and respected within their community. The affidavits from the Appellant's brother and uncle establish that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant was married to XXXX in 2010 without her consent in accordance with custom. As well, the Appellant's testimony and documentary evidence including the medical certificate and police report from 2010 establish that, more likely than not, the Appellant was abused by her husband in 2010. However, none of the Appellant's documentary evidence or testimony has the capacity to establish that the Appellant would not be safe from future persecution in Lagos or Abuja. As such, this evidence is not probative of the current risk of persecution the Appellant faces in 2019. Particularly as she has separated from her husband and has never before lived in Lagos or Abuja. [12] The Appellant states that in May 2010 she applied to her community's king for a separation, which was granted pending the resolution of litigation concerning her late husband's estate. The Appellant claims that a temporary separation was granted to her on XXXX XXXX, 2010 and that she and her husband have been separated since that date. The Appellant claims that in May 2017, the lawsuit against her late husband's estate was withdrawn, which prompted XXXX to obtain a judgement from the King requiring the Appellant to resume her role as his wife. [13] In 2017, when the king allegedly issued this judgement, the Appellant was in Canada. She claims that XXXX obtained her phone number in Canada and began to threaten her on the phone demanding that she return to him, but also tried to convince her to return by saying that he had fallen in love with her. The Appellant states that his threats over the phone increased and he began to threaten her brother in Nigeria and told him that he had asked his police friend to declare the Appellant wanted in Nigeria and that his community members would also look for her. However, the Appellant did not submit evidence that her brother has been persecuted or harmed by XXXX, or that the Appellant is wanted by the Nigerian police who intend to force her to return to XXXX. [14] From 2010 to 2016, the Appellant lived, worked, and interacted with XXXX and her community members in the city of Aba and never attempted to flee to another part of Nigeria. Neither did the Appellant attempt to hide from her estranged husband within Aba. The Appellant was not persecuted by her estranged husband during this six-year period. She states that when they separated in 2010 after the domestic abuse, she returned to her parents' home and XXXX knew where she was living. She continued to live and work in Aba, where XXXX also lived, from 2010 to 2016. In 2016, the Appellant left Nigeria to visit family in Canada, not to flee from persecution by XXXX and her community members. [15] The Appellant testified that after the King's judgement was issued, he declared that she would be found by the youths of the community anywhere she might be and taken back to be flogged and forced to live with XXXX. She claims that members of her community must attend bimonthly meetings wherever they live and that they are told the King's rulings at these meetings. When questioned by the RPD, the Appellant was unable to estimate the number of people in her community but she did testify that the King's rulings would be given to three communities which are made up of approximately 35 villages in Abia state. [16] The RPD noted that the Appellant provided no evidence of her community's effectiveness in locating people in Nigeria and that there was no objective evidence in this regard. I find that the RPD was correct to find that the Appellant had not demonstrated that her persecutors have the means or motivation to locate her and continue to persecute her in Lagos or Abuja, which are large urban centres with populations of approximately 13 million and 2 million respectively.8 As the RPD noted, the national documentation indicates that Nigeria is a large country covering an area of 900,000 square kilometres with a population of over 170 million with poor communication infrastructure that would make it difficult to locate the Appellant. The RPD did not err when it found that it would not be unreasonable for the Appellant to relocate to Abuja or Lagos [17] I find that the RPD was correct to conclude that, taking the Appellant's personal circumstances into consideration, it would not be unreasonable for her to relocate to Abuja or Lagos and be able to support herself in either IFA. [18] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred because it did not consider the particular situation of the Appellant as a Nigerian woman in assessing the reasonableness of the IFAs and did not demonstrate that it took the Gender Guideline into consideration. She also alleges that in arriving at this finding, the RPD did not respect the principles of natural justice because it relied on specific items from the national documentation that supported this decision without considering other national documentation which contradicted this position. Having independently assessed the record, I disagree with these submissions. The RPD considered the Gender Guideline and stated in the reasons that the Panel specifically took into consideration how they relate to the Appellant's ability to travel safely to the identified IFA and stay there without undue hardship. The RPD also acknowledged that the objective evidence states that women face discrimination in housing, employment and other services in Nigeria however women can move throughout Nigeria, and relocation may be a reasonable option depending on a woman's individual circumstances. [19] I find that the Appellant is well placed to find employment and support herself in Lagos or Abuja. As noted by the RPD, the Appellant has approximately 17 years of education. She is a university graduate with a certificate in XXXX9 and a XXXX XXXX.10 The Appellant has a history of working in senior professional positions in Nigeria. During her marriage to her late husband, she worked part time XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. In addition, she worked full time at his XXXX XXXX which had approximately 50 employees. The Appellant testified that she was the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and was in charge of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The Appellant also has a history of work unrelated to her late husband or his businesses, which his family allegedly forced her to sign over to XXXX after her husband died. In 2010, after she separated from her husband, the Appellant was appointed as a XXXX XXXX XXXX in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.11 [20] The Appellant claimed that she did not try moving to another city in Nigeria to escape XXXX because she did not have the money to look for a job and would be subjected to living on the streets. The Appellant did not provide evidence to support these claims. Given her education, work experience, and personal circumstances, I agree with the RPD's finding that the Appellant's testimony regarding her employment and housing prospects in Lagos or Abuja appears to be based on speculation and fear rather than verifiable fact. The Appellant also submits that the RPD erred because it failed to consider national documentation dealing with the totality of the evidence regarding the situation of women in Nigeria which included: obstacles faced by non-indigenous ethnic group members when relocating; single women's vulnerability to abuse when relocating to another area without family networks; that in Nigeria women have higher rates of unemployment than men especially in urban areas; that women living without male support cannot get a reasonable job and face high rent in Lagos and Abuja; and that there is social stigma in Nigeria against divorced and widowed women. [21] While women do face gender-related hardship in Nigeria generally, these challenges do not meet the high threshold required to establish that an identified IFA is unreasonable. In this regard, I also adopt the analysis and conclusions from the jurisprudential guide which indicate that for single women, such as the Appellant, Lagos or Abuja would be viable IFAs because: her level of education is well above the national average for both men and women;12 southern cities such as Lagos and Abuja offer greater opportunities for women of higher education and socioeconomic status13 and there are more female-headed households in southern Nigeria;14 and indigeneship status is less important in big cities such as Lagos and Abuja.15 [22] In light of the above, I find that the Appellant has not demonstrated that Lagos and Abuja are not viable IFAs. Therefore, I find that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. CONCLUSION [23] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). (signed) D. Lewis Member March 19, 2019 Date 1 Chairperson Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (the Gender Guideline). Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa March 9, 1993 amended November 1996. 2 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706. 3 Calderon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 263 at para 10. 4 X (Re), 2018 CanLII 52123, Jurisprudential Guide on Nigeria IFA, decision TB7-19851. 5 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 201, Judgement from His Royal Majesty Eze Kalu Kalu Ogbu. 6 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 245, Affidavit from XXXX dated November 22, 2017. 7 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 243, Affidavit from XXXX dated November 20, 2017. 8 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, Nigeria National Documentation Package, version 31 March 2017, documents 1.6, 1.7, 1.8. 9 RPD -1, RPD Record, page 249, XXXX. 10 RPD -1, RPD Record, page 250, XXXX. 11 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 199, Regularization of Appointment Letter from XXXX. 12 Supra note 4, Jurisprudential Guide at paragraph 25. 13 Ibid. para 25 and 26. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. at para 28. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-05170 RAD.25.02 (September 18, 2018) 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 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français