TB9-27762

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-27762 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXa.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Vancouver, BC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 14, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Kim Polowek Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Lisa Winter-Card Barrister and Solicitor Conseil de la|des 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] I dismiss this appeal. XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant) is a citizen of Nigeria. Her claim for refugee protection was denied by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) on September 18, 2019, on the basis of credibility, lack of subjective fear and their central finding that her unique medical condition and single status would not subject her to risk in Nigeria. The Appellant submits that her gender and medical condition, when assessed globally and viewed together, will result in her facing cumulative acts of discrimination which will amount to her persecution in Nigeria. I find that the key question in this appeal is whether the Appellant's medical condition of sickle cell disease (SCD) and status as a single woman would put her at risk for a serious possibility of persecution or probability of harm. I find that the RPD was correct to find that the Appellant's circumstances would not subject her to persecution or harm in Nigeria. DECISION [2] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention1 refugee or a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS [3] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.2 [4] While the Appellant's memorandum points to a number of errors made by the RPD, I see the central determinative issue in this appeal is whether the Appellant's unique circumstances, namely being a single woman and suffering from XXXX, rises to a level where she will face forward-looking cumulative acts of discrimination amounting to persecution or harm in Nigeria. The Appellant's memorandum states, "The question is whether these two grounds, which co-exist in the same person, would cause more than a mere possibility that she would face persecution on a convention ground."3 Having posed this question, the Appellant then submits that the RAD should "pick up where the RPD erred and assess the Appellant's gender and medical condition in a global and holistic assessment to determine whether there is more than a mere possibility that the Appellant will face cumulative acts of discrimination amounting to persecution as a single women with XXXX if she is forced to return to Nigeria."4 I did not find the Appellant's memorandum clear as to exactly how the RPD erred or failed to undertake this kind of analysis in its assessment of the Appellant's risk profile. [5] As I see it, the RPD appropriately analyzed risk to the Appellant flowing from her medical condition and having conducted my own independent analysis, I see no error in its assessment of the evidence and findings.5 Further, the RPD also analyzed risk to the Appellant stemming from her circumstance as a single woman in Nigeria and again, I see no error in its assessment of the evidence and findings.6 [6] I find that the RPD assessed the risk from the Appellant's medical condition and her status as a single woman and determined that she had not discharged her burden of establishing that these circumstances rose to a serious forward-looking possibility of persecution or probability of harm upon her return to Nigeria. I find that on this central determinative issue the RPD decision is correct and as noted, adopt the reasoning of the RPD which I find to be correct. CONCLUSION [7] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. (signed) "Kim Polowek" Kim Polowek February 14, 2020 Date 1 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention. 2Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum at para. 24. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum at para. 25. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at paras. 22 to 28 and paras. 42 to 44. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision at paras. 29 to 36. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-27762 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) 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 (January, 2020) Disponible en français