TC2-13081

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-13081 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision September 16, 2022 Date de la décision Panel C. Lindberg Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jacqueline Lewis 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 XXXX (Appellant) is a citizen of Nigeria. He alleges that he fears being killed by members of a secret cult. The Appellant alleges that, when they carried out attacks in his village in Ondo State, they called themselves "XXXX XXXX". His allegation is that, because he was the XXXX of the youth in the community and he tried to stop their attacks, the XXXX XXXX have targeted him. The Appellant left Nigeria and came to Canada in XXXX 2019. He made a refugee claim in August 2020. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) heard the Appellant's claim on December 1, 2021. The RPD rejected his claim on May 3, 2022. The determinative issue was internal flight alternative (IFA). DECISION [3] I dismiss the appeal. The determinative issue is IFA. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. NEW EVIDENCE AND ORAL HEARING [4] The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to accept as new evidence an affidavit sworn by the Appellant on June 14, 2022,1 with exhibits attached, as follows: * Exhibit A, three photographs showing documents entitled "Extract From Crime Diary" dated XXXX XXXX, 2022, XXXX XXXX, 2021, and XXXX XXXX, 2020;2 * Exhibit B, a photograph of an affidavit sworn by the Appellant's daughter on XXXX XXXX, 2022;3 and * Exhibit C, a photograph of an affidavit sworn by the Appellant's daughter on XXXX XXXX, 2021.4 [5] According to subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),5 I can accept the evidence only if: i. it arose after the RPD decision; ii. it was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to provide it before the decision. [6] If the evidence meets at least one of the statutory requirements, I must decide whether the evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.6 [7] The burden of establishing the admissibility of new evidence lies on the Appellant, who is expected to provide full and detailed submissions.7 [8] I find that the new evidence submitted by the Appellant is not admissible. My reasons follow. The Appellant has not established that the new evidence meets statutory admissibility requirements [9] None of the evidence that the Appellant has presented is evidence that arose after the RPD decision. I find that he has not established that it was not available to him or that he could not reasonably have been expected to present it before the decision. [10] The Appellant's explanation is that he lost contact with his daughter after XXXX XXXX, 2020 and was able to reconnect with her only when his sister went to Lagos on XXXX XXXX, 2022. The Appellant states that, "some days after arriving in Lagos" his sister met with his daughter and "finally, I was able to get her new phone number and we reconnected."8 Counsel submits that the Appellant reconnected with his daughter at the end of XXXX 2022.9 The Appellant does not give a date nor does he explain how or when he received the documents that he asks the RAD to accept as new evidence. With the exception of one crime diary extract and one of the affidavits sworn by his daughter, the documents appear to have been created before the Appellant's sister met with his daughter, over XXXX XXXX before the RPD decided his claim. The two documents bearing dates in XXXX were created over XXXX weeks before the RPD decided his claim. The Appellant was represented by counsel. He provided other post-hearing evidence. He has not met his burden to establish that the exhibits to his affidavit meet statutory admissibility requirements. [11] With respect to the Appellant's affidavit, paragraphs 1 to 3 repeat or elaborate on evidence given at the RPD. This is not admissible as new evidence. The only new evidence is in paragraphs 4 to 8 in which the Appellant repeats evidence in his daughter's affidavits and explains why he did not submit Exhibits A, B, and C before the RPD decision. I have considered paragraphs 4 to 8 in assessing the admissibility of those exhibits but I do not accept those paragraphs as new evidence of the facts alleged. This is for the same reasons that I have found the exhibits inadmissible. The Appellant has not met the requirements of subsection 110(4). [12] The Appellant has requested an oral hearing. As I have not admitted any new evidence, I do not have the power to hold an oral hearing10 and I will not do so. ANALYSIS [13] The RPD found that the Appellant has a viable IFA in Lagos. In making this determination, the RPD found that there was insufficient credible evidence to establish the Appellant's allegation that the XXXX XXXX were responsible for an attack in Ekiti State. The Appellant argues that this finding was incorrect and that the RPD erred in assessing the Appellant's risk of persecution in Lagos and the reasonableness of relocation to Lagos for the Appellant. I am not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments. I find that the RPD was correct to conclude that the Appellant has a viable IFA in Lagos. For the reasons that follow, I reach the same conclusion. The legal test for an IFA [14] The test for assessing an IFA is two-pronged and both prongs must be satisfied to find that a refugee claimant has a viable IFA.11 Firstly, there must be no serious possibility of being persecuted, nor a risk to life, danger of torture, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, on a balance of probabilities, in the proposed IFA. The assessment of viability under the first prong requires considering the motivation and the capacity of the agent of harm to locate the claimant in the IFA. Secondly, the conditions in the proposed IFA must be such that it would not be objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, to relocate and live there. [15] For an IFA to be viable, both prongs of the test must be satisfied. Once the issue has been raised and a potential IFA location has been identified, the onus shifts to the claimant to prove that they do not have an IFA.12 [16] The test to show that an IFA is unreasonable requires proof of adverse conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimant in travelling to and living in the IFA location.13 Actual and concrete evidence of adverse conditions is required.14 The RPD correctly found that the Appellant did not establish that he would face a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, a subsection 97(1) risk in Lagos The Appellant did not establish his allegations that the XXXX XXXX were responsible for an attack in Ekiti State in 2021 or that they are present throughout Nigeria, on a balance of probabilities [17] The Appellant's evidence was that he was part of a vigilante group that sought to keep the village safe from the XXXX XXXX. He testified that he knows that the XXXX XXXX will kill him in an IFA location because, in 2021, they killed another member of the group, KO, who had relocated to Ekiti State, and then cut him into pieces.15 The Appellant's evidence includes a video showing an attack.16 The RPD found that there was insufficient credible evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the XXXX XXXX were responsible for the attack, as alleged, or that they have members throughout Nigeria or that they employ a particular method of killing. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in assessing the credibility of the evidence. I am not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments. On an independent assessment of the evidence in its totality, I find it insufficient to establish that the XXXX XXXX were responsible for an attack alleged to have taken place in Ekiti State and shown in a video, or that the XXXX XXXX have members throughout Nigeria, or that they employ a particular method of killing. Before explaining my reasons, I will address the inconsistency between counsel's submissions and the Appellant's allegations about the identity of the victim in the video and who sent the video to the Appellant. [18] Counsel submits that the Appellant testified that his assistant, T, had fled to Ekiti State where he was shot and later died and that video evidence sent by the Appellant's friend, Mr. XXXX, establishes that the XXXX XXXX cult members were responsible for the attack. I do not find that this reflects the evidence. The Appellant's evidence, in his third Basis of Claim (BOC) amendment, was that KO (not T) was killed in Ekiti State in 2021 and that it was Mr. XXXX (not Mr. XXXX) who sent him a video of the attack.17 His evidence includes a letter from Mr. XXXX in which Mr. XXXX refers to the existence of a death video of KO.18 The RPD's findings refer to the panel's assessment of the Appellant's evidence that it was KO who was attacked and that the video came from Mr. XXXX. Counsel's arguments are premised on the victim being T and the source of the video being Mr. XXXX. Nonetheless, in my independent assessment, I have considered counsel's arguments, to the extent that they may be relevant despite being inconsistent with the Appellant's allegations. The RPD did not err in finding that the Appellant's testimony about the source of the video was not reliable [19] The RPD found that the Appellant's shifting testimony about the source of the video was not credible or reliable. The Appellant testified that Mr. XXXX saw the video on the internet and sent it to the Appellant using WhatsApp.19 His testimony was that Mr. XXXX believed the assailants were XXXX XXXX because he saw it on their page but the Appellant did not know the page.20 He then testified that Mr. XXXX said he saw it on the XXXX XXXX WhatsApp page.21 When the panel member asked him to explain how Mr. XXXX could have seen it on the XXXX XXXX WhatsApp, given that WhatsApp is an application for making calls and sending messages, the Appellant testified that when anyone says anything on your page they send it to their group members; they share the information with their group.22 The RPD member asked the Appellant why Mr. XXXX would be part of the XXXX XXXX WhatsApp group and the Appellant said he did not know but maybe he belongs to any group or whatever.23 [20] The Appellant argues that he stated that he got the video from a friend and there is no contradiction in the two versions of how he got it. I disagree. The Appellant's testimony was that Mr. XXXX might have obtained the video as a result of being in a WhatsApp group for members of the XXXX XXXX. This is inconsistent with his initial testimony that Mr. XXXX saw the video on the internet. It is also speculative. The Appellant further argues that the video could have been available on a website that the Appellant does not know and then later it was circulating on WhatsApp and sent to him by a friend. I find that this argument invites me to speculate on how the Appellant might have received the video. My role is to assess the evidence presented by the Appellant about the source of the video. As I have explained, I find that evidence inconsistent and speculative. This raises concerns about the reliability of the video evidence. [21] The Appellant argues that the findings about the source of the video are microscopic. I disagree. The RPD, and now the RAD, must assess the credibility of the evidence. The source of the evidence and circumstances of its creation are relevant to that assessment. [22] The Appellant argues that the RPD should have focused on the fact that the video is authentic and depicts the Appellant's assistant being killed. As I have already explained, his evidence was that the victim was KO, not his assistant, T. The Appellant submits that the RPD did not challenge the video's authenticity nor the identity of the person being attacked. I agree that the RPD did not make a finding as to the authenticity of the video or the identity of the victim. What the RPD found was that the Appellant did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, his allegation that the XXXX XXXX carried out an attack in Ekiti State in 2021 on his fellow vigilante group member, KO. According to the Appellant, this was a reason for his belief that he will not be safe in an IFA. The video is evidence that the Appellant presented in support of his allegation. I find that the RPD did not err by focusing its assessment of the video evidence on whether it establishes the Appellant's allegation. [23] For the reasons I have given, I find that the evidence about the source of the video raises concerns about its reliability, its relevance, and its probative value in relation to the Appellant's allegations. The RPD correctly concluded that the video on its face does not establish that the assailants were the XXXX XXXX [24] The RPD found that there was no evidence on the face of the video that the assailants were members of the XXXX XXXX. The Appellant argues that the XXXX XXXX would not necessarily identify themselves in a manner that someone outside their culture would know their identity. This may be true but the burden remains on the Appellant to establish his allegations. On an independent assessment, I find it speculative to conclude that the assailants in the video were XXXX XXXX. [25] The Appellant argues that the RPD should have considered the fact that the attack was recorded as an indication that the killers wanted to send a message. There is no evidence as to who recorded the attack or why. I find no error in the absence of speculation by the RPD about why the attack was recorded. Counsel submits that since the RPD agrees that T was the person being killed on the video, all the evidence points to the XXXX XXXX as being responsible. The Appellant's allegation was that KO was the person killed, not T. Moreover, the RPD made no finding about the identity of the victim. Finally, even if I were to accept that KO was the person killed, I would not find this sufficient to establish the identity of the assailants, on a balance of probabilities. I find the evidence presented establishes no more than a mere suspicion that the XXXX XXXX were responsible. The RPD correctly concluded that the Appellant's testimony was insufficient to establish that the XXXX XXXX are found throughout Nigeria and that they employ a particular method of killing [26] The RPD found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the XXXX XXXX are found throughout Nigeria or that they employ a particular method of killing. The Appellant argues that the RPD contradicted itself by reasoning that the Appellant did not explain why the cult members were responsible for the attack shown in the video and, at the same time, challenging his explanation that the cult members have a particular method of killing. I find no contradiction in the RPD's reasons. I explain why in the following paragraphs. [27] The RPD found that the Appellant did not explain why Mr. XXXX, the alleged source of the video, believed that the cult members were responsible for the attack in the video. I see no error in this. The Appellant was asked how Mr. XXXX knew that the assailants in the video were XXXX XXXX and his answer was "[t]hat's the part I don't know."24 Mr. XXXX provided a supporting letter but in it he does not state the basis for his belief that the assailants were XXXX XXXX.25 [28] The Appellant argues that he explained the basis for his own belief as being that the XXXX XXXX have a particular way of killing people. The RPD found that there was no objective evidence that the XXXX XXXX have members throughout Nigeria or that they employ a particular method of killing. The Appellant refers to the letter from Mr. XXXX stating that everyone was running and hiding from the XXXX XXXX and submits that, therefore, when T was killed in a particular way, they associated the killing with the cult members. I have considered whether this submission has merit, having regard to the Appellant's allegation that KO was the victim shown in the video. I find that it does not. The Appellant has not explained what the logical connection is between the evidence that people were running and hiding from the cult members and his allegation that the cult members carry out killings in a particular way. I do not find that people fleeing from cult members is evidence that the cult employs a particular method of killing. [29] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding that his testimony that the XXXX XXXX employ a particular method of killing was not credible. Counsel submits that, in Maldonado,26 the Court found that there is a presumption of validity that applies to testimony given under oath. I am not persuaded by the Appellant's argument. The presumption is that the witness is telling the truth. Not all testimony is reliable despite the witness's honest belief. The Appellant submits that an adverse credibility finding is a finding that someone is lying. This is not always the case. The excerpt from the decision in Vodics,27 on which the Appellant relies, addresses the need to explain why a decision-maker finds that a witness is not telling the truth, to the best of their knowledge and belief. This is only one aspect of credibility. The other aspect is the reliability of the evidence.28 Moreover, the RPD's finding was not an adverse credibility finding. It was a finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the XXXX XXXX are found all over Nigeria or that they employ a particular method of killing. The onus is on the Appellant to establish his allegations. I do not find the Appellant's honest belief sufficient to establish these allegations, given the absence of evidence establishing an objective foundation for his belief.29 The RPD correctly concluded that the objective evidence does not establish the presence of the XXXX XXXX throughout Nigeria or their method of killing [30] The RPD found that the objective evidence about secret cults in Nigeria was insufficient to establish that the XXXX XXXX have members throughout Nigeria or that they employ a particular method of killing. The Appellant submits that the objective evidence is that there are many different cults in Nigeria, including secret cults. I agree. However, the onus is on the Appellant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, his allegation that the cult members who have allegedly targeted him are present in Nigeria, outside Ondo State. The Appellant submits that it is unreasonable to expect him to have deep knowledge about the operation of the cult. I agree. The onus remains on him to establish his allegations. The Appellant submits that he has testified under oath and provided corroborative letters stating that the XXXX XXXX are all over Nigeria. I have considered this evidence. I accept, for purposes of the analysis, that the Appellant believes the XXXX XXXX are a secret cult that has members throughout Nigeria, including in Lagos. I have considered the supporting evidence from Mr. XXXX, who states that the XXXX XXXX are all over Nigeria.30 Mr. XXXX does not state the basis for his assertion. I do not find the Appellant's belief or Mr. XXXX assertion to the same effect sufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the XXXX XXXX operate throughout Nigeria, as alleged. Honest belief alone is insufficient to establish this allegation. [31] The Appellant submits that the conclusion that the XXXX XXXX cult was not involved in the killing of the Appellant's assistant is neither logical nor supported by the evidence. The RPD did not make a finding about who killed the Appellant's assistant, T. The Appellant's allegation was that T was killed in the village. I find this has low probative value in relation to the issue of an IFA in Lagos. Neither did the RPD make a finding about who killed KO, the alleged victim in the video. As I have already explained, the RPD's finding was that there was insufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the XXXX XXXX carried out an attack in Ekiti State, as alleged. The burden is on the Appellant to establish his allegations. For the reasons I have given, I find that the evidence is insufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the XXXX XXXX attacked KO in Ekiti State, as allegedly shown in the video. The RPD correctly concluded that the Appellant failed to establish that the XXXX XXXX have the motivation and the means to locate him in Lagos, as alleged [32] The RPD found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the XXXX XXXX are motivated to search for the Appellant in Lagos or that they possess the means to locate him there. The Appellant argues that this is incorrect. On reviewing the record, I find that the RPD did not err. I find that the Appellant has not established that he faces a serious risk of persecution in Lagos from the XXXX XXXX. The evidence is insufficient to establish that they have the means or the motivation to locate him there. My reasons follow. [33] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in assessing his risk of persecution in Lagos based on the fact that the XXXX XXXX did not locate him there in 2018 or 2019. I am not persuaded by this argument. Contrary to the Appellant's submission, the RPD did not base its conclusion that the cult members were not looking for him on the fact that they did not find him. The RPD stated that there was no evidence that the XXXX XXXX were looking for him. I see no error in this. The Appellant argues that the killing of his assistant, T, in Ekiti State is evidence that the XXXX XXXX were searching for the Appellant outside Ondo State. I have already explained why I find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the XXXX XXXX were responsible for attacking and killing KO in Ekiti State, as alleged. [34] The Appellant's submissions emphasize that, while staying about one year in Lagos, he was hiding with a friend and taking all possible precautions to avoid being located. The Appellant does not refer to any evidence as to the precautions he took. I have reviewed the record and the only evidence I could find that is capable of supporting this submission to any degree is the Appellant's testimony in response to the RPD member's question as to whether he experienced any problems while staying in Lagos. He testified that he had just a minor problem.31 The panel member asked him what the problem was and he testified as follows: CLAIMANT: Number one, I didn't have freedom to move about because I was scared, I was afraid. Secondly, for someone that's been independent that have my business, I now became dependent on someone, so I wasn't in a very good condition. I didn't like it.32 [35] The Appellant's evidence in his BOC is that he stayed with a friend in Lagos from XXXX 2018 or XXXX 2019 until XXXX XXXX, 2019.33 He does not say anything in his initial BOC or in the three amendments to his BOC about hiding or taking precautions. The Appellant's friend provided a supporting letter sating that the Appellant stayed with him in Lagos from XXXX 2019 until XXXX XXXX, 2020.34 He does not say that the Appellant was hiding nor does he mention any precautions taken by the Appellant. Moreover, the letter is inconsistent with the evidence that the Appellant arrived in Canada in XXXX 2019. I find that the Appellant's testimony that he was afraid and did not have freedom to move about is insufficient to establish that he was hiding and taking all possible precautions to avoid being located. Although counsel questioned the Appellant, no questions were asked about hiding or taking precautions in Lagos to avoid being located. There is no evidence as to whether he took any precautions. [36] Even if I were to accept the Appellant's submission that he lived in hiding in Lagos, I would still conclude that the evidence is insufficient to establish that he faces a serious possibility of persecution due to the XXXX XXXX having the motivation and the means to locate him there. The Appellant's evidence is that he was targeted by the XXXX XXXX because of his leadership role in his village in Ekiti State. He testified that the village has been deserted since late 2020.35 He argues that the XXXX XXXX motivation to locate him is established by the evidence of the killing in Ekiti State and a letter from Mr. XXXX stating that others are running away from the XXXX XXXX36 and by his testimony. I am not persuaded by this argument. Mr. XXXX letter, dated XXXX XXXX, 2021, gives his address as being in the community of the village. The letter does not refer to the XXXX XXXX looking anywhere outside the village for anyone. Moreover, as the Appellant's evidence is that the village is deserted, there is no reason that the XXXX XXXX would anticipate that the Appellant would return and resume his role there. [37] I agree with the Appellant that he need not establish that the XXXX XXXX have searched for him in Lagos. I do not agree with his submission that this is what the RDP suggested. The RPD correctly considered that there was no credible evidence that the XXXX XXXX had searched for him in Lagos. Taking this into consideration is not an error. The RPD considered this in coming to the conclusion that the Appellant failed to establish that the XXXX XXXX are motivated to look for him outside Ondo State or in Lagos, in particular. [38] The Appellant argues that he provided sworn evidence that the operation of the XXXX XXXX is broader than their activities in his village. I agree that he testified that this is his belief. I do not find his belief alone sufficient to establish this as a fact. The Appellant did not present objective evidence to establish the reach of the XXXX XXXX.37 The Appellant submits that he stated that the cult members use other names in other locations. His testimony was that maybe they are called something else in some other place but he did not know.38 The Appellant argues that the RPD emphasized his lack of knowledge of names used by the cult in other locations and that this was incorrect. He submits that the fact that he does not know the other names used by the cult does not negate the probability of his risk. I am not persuaded by his argument. The burden is on the Appellant to establish that the IFA is not viable. If he fails to present sufficient credible evidence to establish that he faces a serious possibility of persecution or a subsection 97(1) risk in the IFA location, then he has not met that burden. His testimony that he does not know the names used by the cult outside the village does not negate any alleged risk but neither does it assist him to meet his burden. [39] The Appellant refers to the objective evidence that the number of secret cults in Nigeria is increasing, especially in the south. I have considered this evidence. I do not find that the objective evidence about cults is sufficient to establish that the XXXX XXXX are members of a cult that has members in or links to Lagos, such that they would have the means to locate the Appellant there. [40] The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to address the proximity of Lagos to Ondo Sate, which he submits is around five-and-a-half hours away by car. He argues that the RPD erred in requiring that the cult have members in the IFA location, since it is possible to travel there and back from Ondo State in one day. The RPD's finding was that there was no objective evidence to support that the XXXX XXXX have members in the IFA location. I see no error in this finding. The Appellant has not referred to any objective evidence that contradicts this finding. Whether the evidence establishes that the XXXX XXXX have members in Lagos is relevant to the assessment under the first prong of the test for an IFA. Moreover, I do not find the distance between Lagos and Ondo State is evidence establishing that the XXXX XXXX have the means to locate the Appellant in Lagos. [41] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in highlighting the size and population of Lagos. I disagree. The Appellant argues that the RPD presupposed that he would be able to easily hide in Lagos and an IFA is not viable if it is necessary to hide there. He argues that there is no reason why a densely populated or large city would be of any consequence except to allow a person to hide. I am not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments. The RPD did not presuppose that the Appellant would need to hide. In assessing the evidence in its totality, the RPD referred to the size and population of Lagos. I see no error in this. The size of an IFA location is not determinative but this does not mean it is not relevant. Lagos has a population of over 14 million people. It is obviously easier to find someone in a small village than to find someone in a large urban area. The likelihood of an accidental encounter is greater as is the likelihood of locating them by asking around. The Appellant has not established that the IFA is not viable under the first prong of the legal test [42] The Appellant argues that, in determining whether there is an objective basis for fearing persecution in the IFA, the RPD must consider the personal circumstances of the Appellant, and not just general evidence concerning other persons who live there. He does not identify how the RPD erred in this regard or the personal circumstances to which he refers. I find that the RPD thoroughly assessed the evidence relevant to the assessment of the viability of the IFA under the first prong of the legal test. I have done the same. The Appellant was asked how the XXXX XXXX would track him to an IFA location and he testified that he did not know.39 The Appellant's supporting evidence includes a letter from Mr. XXXX who says that "the XXXX XXXX are all over Nigeria" but he does not indicate the basis for his belief.40 [43] On assessing the evidence in its totality, for the reasons I have given, I find that the Appellant has not established that, in Lagos, he faces a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, a subsection 97(1) risk at the hands of the XXXX XXXX, or for any other reason. The RPD correctly found that the Appellant did not establish that relocation to Lagos would be unreasonable for him, on a balance of probabilities [44] The RPD found that the Appellant did not meet his burden to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that conditions in Lagos are such that it would be unreasonable for him to relocate there. The Appellant argues that this is incorrect and that the prejudice and hardship he would face is much greater than what was considered by the RPD. I am not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments. On assessing the evidence independently, I find that the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that, in his personal circumstances, relocation to Lagos would be unreasonable or unduly harsh. My reasons follow. [45] The Appellant's evidence is that he is a 59-year-old man who lived in a village in Ondo State for much of his life. He argues that the RPD failed to take into account his age and the impact of relocation, in light of his personal circumstances, particularly his age and his history of living in a rural area. I am not persuaded by this argument. I accept that relocation to Lagos will be difficult. However, I do not find that there is actual and concrete evidence of adverse conditions that, on a balance of probabilities, jeopardize his life and safety in Lagos, given his personal circumstances. The RPD did not err in assessing the evidence that the Appellant has family and friends in Lagos [46] The RPD found that the presence of family and friends in Lagos weigh in favour of the reasonableness of the proposed IFA. The Appellant submits that, notwithstanding the presence of siblings, children, and friends in Lagos, he has lived all his life in the village and the RPD failed to take into account his advanced age and the impact of relocation on the life of someone who is a senior. I find no error in the RPD's assessment of the evidence. The Appellant is a 59-year-old man. Relocation may be difficult but I do not find that, in all the circumstances, his age and his background would make it unreasonable, on a balance of probabilities. The RPD did not err in finding that indigeneship is not a significant barrier to the Appellant's relocation to Lagos [47] The RPD found that the Appellant would not face significant barriers in relocating to Lagos due to his indigeneship status, on a balance of probabilities. The Appellant has not challenged this finding and I see no error in it. On an independent assessment, I reach the same conclusion. The RPD correctly concluded that the Appellant would not face a language barrier in Lagos [48] The RPD found that the Appellant would not face a language barrier. The Appellant has not challenged this finding and I see no error in it. On an independent assessment, I reach the same conclusion. The RPD correctly concluded that the Appellant's religion would not make an IFA in Lagos not viable for him [49] The RPD found that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would be able to practice his faith as a Christian in Lagos. The Appellant argues that he fears being persecuted in Lagos because he is a Christian. I am not persuaded that he faces a serious possibility of persecution based on religion or that his Christian faith makes relocation to Lagos unreasonable for him. The BBC notes that Christians form the majority in Lagos city and the US Department of State reports that Christians and Muslims live in approximately equal numbers in Lagos state.41 The Appellant refers to evidence of attacks on Christians in the north of Nigeria and argues that Christians can be vulnerable to attacks in other parts of Nigeria. I find this speculative. He argues that the RPD erred in concluding that the situation of Christians in Lagos is "normal" because there is a high degree of uncertainty regarding religious disputes in Nigeria. The RPD was referring to objective evidence which states that about 40% (or more) of Nigeria's population is Christian and that the situation for Christians in Lagos is "normal" and that they live peacefully with people of other religions.42 I have considered the evidence of country conditions to which the Appellant refers.43 The attacks on Christians reported in these articles occurred in parts of Nigeria other than Lagos and the surrounding region. I find it speculative and contrary to the weight of the evidence in the National Documentation Package for Nigeria to conclude that the Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, difficulties that rise to the level of unreasonableness on account of his Christian faith. Moreover, the friend with whom the Appellant stayed for about a year in Lagos is a Christian pastor. The Appellant's friendship and connections with his friend's ministry in Lagos are factors that weigh in favour of the reasonableness of relocation to Lagos, on a balance of probabilities. The Appellant will be able to practice his Christian faith within a religious community where he is already known to some of its members. The RPD correctly concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would be able to obtain employment in Lagos and support himself and his dependents [50] The RPD found that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would be able to obtain and maintain employment in Lagos and support himself and dependent family members. The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to assess his particular circumstances. He argues that he has worked as a farmer for most of his life and that employment opportunities in a large urban centre are significantly different than his experiences. He argues that, due to his age, it is unreasonable to expect him to do physically intensive work. He argues that he earned his diploma in 1984 and it is unreasonable to consider that it would be of any help to him in finding employment in Lagos. I am not persuaded by his arguments. The Appellant's evidence is that he has eleven years of education.44 In completing his Schedule A Background/Declaration, the Appellant indicated that, during the ten years prior to leaving Nigeria, he was self-employed and his activities were as a XXXX farmer, XXXX XXXX farmer, XXXX XXXX company, and XXXX XXXX company.45 His testimony was that he was farming XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX; that he was XXXX XXXX; and that he had a business XXXX XXXX XXXX; and that he had a business XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX and XXXX XXXX.46 The Appellant testified that he was always self-employed.47 I find that the Appellant's evidence indicates a history of varied employment activities. I agree that his diploma is not a significant factor, in itself, in terms of his ability to find work. However, his work experience and his experience as a self-employed business owner is evidence that he has the ability to use his skills in diverse ways. I have considered his testimony that he is a farmer and he cannot farm in Lagos.48 The need for the Appellant to find some means to support himself, other than farming, does not make the IFA location unreasonable. In the XXXX progress report that the Appellant submitted to the RPD, the XXXX evidence was that the Appellant shared that his long-term goals include building a career.49 Although the evidence was that the Appellant hoped to build his career in Canada, I find that this is evidence that the Appellant does not perceive his work life as having ended, due to his age. I have considered the evidence that there is a high rate of unemployment in Nigeria.50 The unemployment rate in Lagos was reported as 19.5% in the second quarter of 2020, however, the city is also described as a dynamic part of Nigeria's economy and the centre of the country's manufacturing industry.51 The Executive Director of a non-governmental organization indicates that relocation to cities, including Lagos, is based on having money and that those who relocate would face hardship if they have no means of livelihood and also do not have relatives or friends to support them in terms of shelter, feeding, and other basic necessities.52 The Appellant's evidence is that he lived for about a year with a friend in Lagos. The evidence is that his friend is a pastor who assisted the Appellant to locate friends and members who raised money for his ticket and hotel reservation so he could travel.53 The Appellant's evidence is that he has children and siblings living in Lagos.54 The evidence is that the main languages used in Lagos are Yoruba and English55 and that the Appellant speaks both of these languages.56 Yoruba is the dominant ethnic group in Lagos57 and it is the group to which the Appellant belongs.58 While finding work in Lagos may not be easy, I find that, on a balance of probabilities, given his personal circumstances, the Appellant will be able to work and provide for himself and dependent family members. [51] There is evidence that Lagos has a housing problem.59 The evidence is that gender discrimination poses challenges for single women and female-headed households.60 For the Appellant, I find that his ability to find gainful employment and his connections in Lagos with family, friends, and a religious community, will enable him to find housing, on a balance of probabilities. The RPD correctly concluded that the Appellant's mental health issues would not make relocation to Lagos unreasonable for him, on a balance of probabilities [52] The RPD found that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would have access to health care, including the mental health care that he may require, based on the XXXX reports. The panel further found that the Appellant's mental health does not render relocation unreasonable and that the evidence does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant would face abuse or discrimination due to his mental health. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred. He argues that the RPD failed to analyze the quality of the medical services provided in Lagos, erred in finding that he would not be perceived by members of Nigerian society as having mental health issues, and that the panel's findings are not supported by the evidence and are at odds with the XXXX diagnosis. He argues also that the RPD failed to properly analyze his need for prescription drugs. The Appellant submits that relocation to Lagos poses a serious risk to his health. I am not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments. I find no error in the RPD's assessment of the evidence. On an independent assessment, I find that the Appellant's health issues do not make relocation to Lagos unreasonable, on a balance of probabilities. My reasons follow. [53] The Appellant presented a XXXX assessment report dated XXXX XXXX, 2021,61 and a progress report of XXXX treatment dated XXXX XXXX, 2021.62 The Appellant was referred to a XXXX by a physician who diagnosed the Appellant with an XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2021. The physician did not diagnose the Appellant with depression or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), however, the XXXX assessment report stated that the Appellant was experiencing XXXX symptoms of XXXXandXXXX XXXX XXXX with XXXX XXXX. The XXXX recommended XXXX XXXX XXXX with the goal of helping the Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX-related symptoms. In the progress report, the XXXX states that the Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in his XXXX XXXX and responded positively to XXXX but that, based on his condition, he would benefit from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [54] The Appellant was diagnosed with an XXXX XXXX by a health professional who is qualified to provide the diagnosis. In Ontario, a XXXX scope of practice does not XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.63 XXXX are authorized to assess and treat XXXX, XXXXorXXXX XXXX disturbances by XXXX means. The XXXX assessment is not a diagnosis. That said, the XXXX is qualified to conduct an assessment and I have considered his opinion that his assessment indicates that the Appellant is experiencing symptoms of XXXXand XXXX, in addition to XXXX XXXX, all at XXXX levels. [55] In his initial assessment report, the XXXX states that "Considering the distressful events that he experienced in Nigeria, it is certain that Mr. XXXX XXXX would not stop suffering from the symptoms of XXXX XXXX if he were to return to Nigeria."64 In his progress report in XXXX, the XXXX states "[...] it can be concluded that his symptoms will likely worsen and the progress he has made so far would be lost if forced to return to his country of origin."65 The Federal Court has said that opinions that go beyond the neutral role of a health professional and stray into advocacy may merit little weight.66 I find that these statements cross that line. Moreover, there is no indication that the XXXX has any knowledge about treatment that the Appellant could access while in Nigeria. [56] The RPD assessed the evidence about mental health care that would be available to the Appellant, on a balance of probabilities, The Appellant argues that the panel failed to analyze the quality of medical services in Lagos. I am not persuaded by this argument. The onus is on the Appellant to establish that relocation to Lagos would be unreasonable, on a balance of probabilities. I have considered the objective evidence regarding the deplorable treatment of patients in mental health facilities and the number of psychiatrists in Nigeria.67 There is no evidence that the Appellant requires inpatient treatment at a mental health facility or that he requires treatment by a psychiatrist. His family physician referred him for XXXX assessment and the XXXX provided XXXX XXXX and recommends more of the same. The sessions given involved counseling and helping the Appellant develop strategies of his own, such as healthy sleep routines and mindfulness meditation, to deal with his symptoms. The Appellant has not established that he would require treatment other than additional XXXX sessions or that he would not be able to obtain such treatment in Lagos. The objective evidence indicates that an NGO based in Lagos provides low-cost therapy sessions and runs a monthly men's only mental health support group.68 While the Appellant's mental health issues may make relocation to Lagos more difficult, I do not find that there is actual and concrete evidence establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that conditions in Lagos will jeopardize his life or safety. [57] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in concluding that the evidence did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant would face discrimination based on how people with mental health issues are perceived by Nigerian society. I am not persuaded by this argument. I agree with the Appellant that the RPD erred in relying on the panel's own observations of the Appellant's demeanour during the hearing. However, on assessing the evidence independently, I find no error in the RPD's conclusion. The Appellant argues that the RPD's findings are not supported by the evidence and are at odds with the XXXX professional diagnosis, based on several sessions with the Appellant. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The XXXX provided an assessment. The Appellant does not explain how the RPD's findings are at odds with the assessment. On reviewing the record, I find the RPD's conclusion consistent with the XXXX assessment. I reach the same conclusion: that the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he would face discrimination as a result of his mental health issues, such that relocation to Lagos would be unreasonable for him. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons. The XXXX described the Appellant as coherent, fully oriented to person, place and time, alert, with no indications of abnormalities in his thought process, no psychotic behaviour, no disorganized thinking or speech, no abnormal motor behaviour, and no perception disorder.69 He was focused and responded in a rational manner to questions.70 While there is objective evidence that mental health issues are stigmatized in Nigeria, a representative of the World Health Organization states that there are varying levels of stigma with different mental health conditions.71 The founder of a Nigerian non-governmental organization raising awareness on mental health states that psychotic conditions are more stigmatized because they are more visible and that depression, PTSD, and other conditions are more invisible but that talking about these conditions is still stigmatized.72 The Appellant can choose to whom he discloses his mental health issues. [58] The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to properly analyze the Appellant's need for prescription drugs. He refers to evidence that fake drugs are available in Nigeria, which poses a great danger to him. I find no merit in this argument. The Appellant presented no evidence that he has been prescribed any medication or that he takes any prescription drugs. The Appellant has not established that relocation to Lagos is unreasonable for him [59] Determining the reasonableness of an IFA requires assessing the evidence in its totality. On doing so, I find that, while relocation to Lagos may be challenging for the Appellant, the difficulties he may face do not, on a balance of probabilities, rise to a level that jeopardizes his life or safety. CONCLUSION [60] For the reasons I have given, I find that the RPD was correct to conclude that the Appellant has a viable IFA in Lagos. Consequently, he has not established his claim for refugee protection. [61] I dismiss the appeal. Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) C. Lindberg C. Lindberg September 16, 2022 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 22-23. 2 Ibid., at pp. 25-27. 3 Ibid., at pp. 29-30. 4 Ibid., at pp. 32-33. 5 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), SC 2001, c. 27, as amended, at ss. 110(4). 6 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 230; Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 (CanLII). 7 Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), Refugee Appeal Division Rules (RAD Rules), SOR/2012-257, Rule 3(3)(g)(iii); Pajarillo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1654 (CanLII), at para 18. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 22, para 8. 9 Ibid., at p. 43, para 18. 10 IRPA, SC, 2001, c. 27, as amended, at ss. 110(6). 11 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at 710; Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589. 12 Thirunavukkarasu, ibid. 13 Rasaratnam, supra, footnote 11; Thirunavukkarasu, ibid; Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164. 14 Ranganathan, ibid., at para 15. 15 Transcript of RPD Hearing, at pp. 35-36. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, item C-15. 17 Ibid., Exhibit 2.4, at p. 38, para 1. 18 Ibid., Exhibit 7, at pp. 180-181. 19 Transcript of RPD Hearing, at p. 37. 20 Ibid., at pp. 37-38. 21 Ibid., at p. 38. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid., at p. 40. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, at pp. 180-181. 26 MalDonado v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1979 CanLII 4098 (FCA), [1980] 2 FC 302. 27 Vodics v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 783 (CanLII), at para 11. 28 Magonza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 14 (CanLII), at para 17. 29 Kassim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 621 (CanLII), at para 22; Semykin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 496 (CanLII), at para 19. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, at p. 181. 31 Transcript of RPD Hearing, at p. 30. 32 Ibid., at pp. 30-31. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2,1, at pp. 32-33. 34 Ibid., Exhibit 10, at p. 205. 35 Transcript of RPD Hearing, at p. 47. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, at pp. 186-187. 37 Iyere v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 67 (CanLII), at para 37. 38 Transcript of RPD Hearing, at pp. 19, 34. 39 Ibid., at pp. 38-39. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, at p. 181. 41 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (30 June 2022), item 1.26, NGA200338.E, at p. 5. 42 Ibid., item 12.5, NGA105320.E, at pp. 1, 9. 43 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at pp. 139-147. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at p. 57. 45 Ibid., at p. 60. 46 Transcript of RPD Hearing, at p. 14. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid., at p. 41. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 12, at p. 221. 50 NDP for Nigeria (30 June 2022), item 1.26, NGA200338.E, at p. 2. 51 Ibid., NGA200338.E, at pp. 5-6. 52 Ibid., NGA200338.E, at p. 4. 53 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10, at p. 205. 54 Transcript of RPD Hearing, at p. 13. 55 NDP for Nigeria (30 June 2022), item 1.26, NGA200338.E, at p. 5. 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2.1, at p. 20. 57 NDP for Nigeria (30 June 2022), item 1.26, NGA200338.E, at p. 5. 58 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2.1, at p. 20. 59 NDP for Nigeria (30 June 2022), item 1.26, NGA200338.E, at p. 7. 60 Ibid. 61 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10, at pp. 191-202. 62 Ibid., Exhibit 12, at pp. 218-226. 63 Psychotherapy Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c.10, Sched.R, s.3. 64 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10, at p. 201. 65 Ibid., Exhibit 12, at p. 225. 66 Khan v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 309 (CanLII), at para 14; Akintola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 971 (CanLII), at paras 33-34; Egbesola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 204 (CanLII), at paras 13-15. 67 NDP for Nigeria (30 June 2022), item 1.27, NGA200342.E, at p. 4. 68 Ibid., at p. 12. 69 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10, at p. 194; Ibid., Exhibit 12, at p. 221. 70 Ibid. 71 NDP for Nigeria (30 June 2022), item 1.27, NGA200342.E, at p. 6. 72 Ibid. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-13081 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français