MB9-13375

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-13375 MB9-13376 / MB9-13377 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision December 13, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Joel Bousfield Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Paul D Ocheje Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] This is the decision in the appeals of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX. The appellants are citizens of Nigeria from Ilorin. They appeal a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision dated June 3, 2019, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. They are requesting that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the RPD's negative determination and find that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. In the alternative, they request that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel. They have not requested to submit new evidence or an oral hearing. DETERMINATION [2] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). 1 BACKGROUND Basis of Claim [3] The appellants fear female genital mutilation, harmful tribal rituals and/or other serious harm at the hands of the principal appellant's grandfather and extended family. The rest of the central allegations in the case are summarized in paragraphs [4] - [9] of the RPD decision. RPD Decision [4] The RPD rejected the claims because it found they have viable internal flight alternatives (IFA) in Port Harcourt and Ibadan. ANALYSIS Determinative Issue [5] The determinative issue in this appeal is whether the RPD erred in assessing the IFA issue. For the following reasons and having examined the record and assessed it independently, the RAD finds that it concurs with the RPD that the appellants have viable IFA's in Port Harcourt and Ibadan. [6] In rendering this decision, the RAD has considered Chairperson's Guideline 42 and Jurisprudential Guide TB7-19851 (the "JG"). The RAD has also done an independent assessment of the record. The RAD is reviewing the RPD decision on a standard of correctness. IFA First Prong [7] The RPD found that the appellants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution and do not face, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture in Port Harcourt and Ibadan because the appellants did not indicate that the principal appellant's grandfather and his agents could locate and harm them in Port Harcourt or Ibadan. [8] The appellants did not challenge this finding by the RPD. Furthermore, having reviewed the record and assessed it independently, the RAD concurs with the RPD. The appellants did not indicate that the principal appellant's grandfather and his agents could locate and harm them in Port Harcourt or Ibadan. The RAD therefore finds that the appellants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution and do not face, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture in Port Harcourt or Ibadan. IFA Second Prong [9] The RPD found that it was not objectively unreasonable to expect the appellants to seek refuge in Port Harcourt or Ibadan. The RPD noted that the country documentary evidence3 and the JG both indicate that relocation would not be unduly harsh for persons of the adult appellants' profile. The RPD noted that the country documentary evidence and the JG indicate that Port Harcourt and Ibadan are ethnically diverse cities with people from all over Nigeria. The RPD disagreed with the appellants' testimony that the appellants could not live in Port Harcourt or Ibadan because of language difficulties, the high cost of living, and uncertain employment and accommodation. The RPD found that the appellants did not present persuasive evidence that they could not live in Port Harcourt or Ibadan because they are Muslim, nor that their minor appellant would have difficulty accessing education or other services. The RPD was not persuaded that the principal appellant went to work in Qatar because he could not find work in Nigeria, and found that he could have gone to Qatar only because jobs there paid better than in Nigeria. The RPD found the appellants' country documents about security concerns4 applied to other regions of Nigeria at other times and were not germane to the issue of whether Port Harcourt and Ibadan are reasonable IFAs for the appellants now. The RPD also found that these documents concerned generalized crime in Nigeria and were therefore not relevant to the reasonableness issue. The RPD found that the appellants did not present persuasive evidence that they would encounter difficulties in Port Harcourt or Ibadan because of their Yoruba and Fulani ethnicity. The RPD therefore found that Port Harcourt and Ibadan are reasonable IFAs for the appellants. [10] The appellants argue that the RPD ignored many country documents indicating that the appellants cannot live in Port Harcourt and Ibadan because of language difficultly, the high cost of living, and uncertain employment and accommodation. The RAD rejects this argument. The appellants have not provided specific citations for the documents that they argue the RPD ignored in this regard. Moreover, having reviewed the relevant country documentary sources5 and the JG as they apply to the appellants, and assessed these matters independently, the RAD finds that it agrees with the RPD and that relocation to Port Harcourt or Ibadan would not be unduly harsh for the appellants. [11] The appellants argue that the RPD misconstrued the principal appellant's testimony when it found that he may have gone to Qatar for a high paying job rather than because he could not find work in Nigeria. The RAD agrees with the appellants. The principal appellant clearly testified that he went to Qatar because he could not find work in Nigeria. Nevertheless, the RAD finds that the RPD's error here is not determinative of the appeal because the principal appellant went to Qatar several years ago and the fact that he could not find work in his career in Nigeria then is not necessarily probative of whether he can find work in Port Harcourt or Ibadan now. Moreover, the concept of viable internal flight does allow for some hardship as long as it is not undue. The RAD finds that the possible necessity of having to search for employment in a different field of work is not undue hardship.6 [12] The appellants argue that the RPD inappropriately raised the standard of proof in assessing the reasonableness issue. The RAD rejects this argument because the appellants have not provided particulars as to how the RPD raised the standard of proof. [13] The appellants argue that the RPD should not have dismissed the appellants' country documents about security concerns7 as irrelevant. The RAD also rejects this argument. Having reviewed the record and assessed it independently, the RAD concurs with the RPD and finds that this evidence applies to other regions of Nigeria at other times and is not germane to the issue of whether Port Harcourt and Ibadan are reasonable IFAs for the appellants now. Moreover, while some of these documents are probative of generalized crime in Nigerian cities, section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the IRPA do not protect refugee claimants from generalized crime risks in their country of citizenship, and that is regardless of whether such risks exist in their home town or in a putative IFA. Generalized crime is therefore not a relevant factor in assessing the first or the second prong of the IFA test. [14] The RAD therefore finds it concurs with the RPD that it would not be objectively unreasonable to expect the appellants to seek internal refuge in Ibadan or Port Harcourt. RAD's IFA conclusion [15] Therefore, as the RAD has assessed the first and second prongs of the IFA test in favour of viability, the RAD finds that Port Harcourt and Ibadan are viable IFAs for the appellants. CONCLUSION [16] Having reviewed and independently assessed the evidence, the RAD concludes that the RPD correctly determined that the appellants have viable internal flight alternatives in Port Harcourt and Ibadan, and therefore that they do not have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground and, on a balance of probabilities, would not be personally subjected to a danger of torture or to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they returned to Nigeria. [17] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD therefore confirms the decision of the RPD and finds that the appellants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection. [18] The appeal is therefore dismissed. (signed) "Joel Bousfield" Joel Bousfield December 13, 2019 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Chairperson 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, March 9, 1993; Update: November 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, pursuant section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, See country documentary sources, at p. 8, para 19. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, See all country items, at pp. 138-337. 5 Ibid., note 3. 6 M.C.I. v. Ranganathan, Rohini (F.C.A., no. A-348-99), Létourneau, Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000. Reported: Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.), paras. 15-16, citing Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 F.C. 589. 7 Ibid., note 4. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-13375 MB9-13376 / MB9-13377 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français