2024 RLLR 128

Citation: 2024 RLLR 128
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 13, 2024
Panel: Megan Kloepfer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Pius Lekwuwa Okoronkwo, Sunday Adeyemi
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: TC2-26104
Associated RPD Number(s): TC2-13484
ATIP Number: A-2025-00724
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision in the refugee claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the principal claimant”, PC), and XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the associate claimant”, AC), who are husband and wife. The claimants are claiming to be citizens of Nigeria and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”).[1]

[2] The principal claimant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2021, while the associate claimant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2022. The associate claimant’s claim was joined with that of the principal claimant during an initial sitting with the Board on January 22, 2024, following Rule 55 (1) of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, and their hearing was rescheduled for a later date. The joint claims were then heard on July 29, 2024 and September 20, 2024, with each claimant represented by their own counsel.

[3] In making this decision, the panel has considered and applied Guideline 9, Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression and Sex Characteristics, as well as Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

[4] Since the hearing of these claims, there has been an update to the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria, which has been included in the consolidated list of documents. The panel has reviewed the updated NDP and finds there are no changes regarding the information cited herein, and as such the panel continues to cite the NDP available at the time of hearing these claims.[2]

ALLEGATIONS

[5] The claimants’ allegations are fully set out in their respective Basis of Claim forms.[3] The PC alleges a fear of persecution in Nigeria from the authorities and society, including the family of her husband, due to her sexual orientation as a bisexual woman. The PC alleges that her sexual orientation became public knowledge in XXXX 2021 when her partner at the time, who was also the niece of a XXXX at their church, exposed their relationship, and thus the sexual orientation of the PC. It was at this point that the AC found out about his wife’s sexual orientation, and their relationship became strained and they separated. The PC alleges that her in-laws wish to perform ritual cleansing on her as a result, and that she has been summoned by the church disciplinary committee, who have said they will report her to the police.

[6] The AC alleges a risk separate from the PC, in that he fears for his life due to his political opinion. The AC alleges that this risk arose when he switched parties from the All Progressives Congress (APC) to the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in XXXX 2021. As a result of his switch, the AC alleges unknown individuals crashed into his vehicle and attacked him on XXXX XXXX, 2021. The AC alleges he reported the XXXX XXXX incident to the police, but that it was not investigated because they are aligned with the political leaders in the area. In XXXX 2021, the AC arranged to relocate to Port Harcourt for his safety, after hearing from a friend connected to the APC that he has been marked for elimination. Once in Port Harcourt, on XXXX XXXX, 2022, the AC got a phone call from unknown individuals stating they knew he had relocated to Port Harcourt and threatening his life.

DETERMINATION

[7] Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the PC is a Convention Refugee, based on her membership in a particular social group, due to her sexual orientation as a bisexual woman.

[8] However, the panel further finds that the AC is neither a Convention Refugee nor a person in need of protection, as he does not face a serious possibility or persecution on a Convention ground in Nigeria, nor has he demonstrated that he would be subjected personally to a risk to his life, a risk or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or to a danger of torture in Nigeria, on a balance of probabilities.

ANALYSIS

[9] The panel will first assess the claim put forward by the PC relating to her sexual orientation, and the risk of the AC as a member of the PC’s family, under section 96. While the claimant has not put forward this risk explicitly in his narrative, it did come up during the hearing, and as such the panel has considered it. The panel will then assess the risk put forward by the AC relating to his political activities and opinion.

[10] In assessing the risk of the AC in connection with the PC, the panel finds that the determinative issue is a lack of well-founded fear in the AC’s personal circumstance. The determinative issue with respect to the political opinion-based claim of the AC is credibility.

Identity

[11] The PC and AC’s personal and national identities as citizens of Nigeria have been established, on a balance of probabilities, by copies of their Nigerian passports.[4] The panel finds no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents and therefore gives them significant weight in establishing the identity of the claimants.

Nexus

[12] The panel finds that there is a nexus between what the PC fears and one of the five Convention grounds, namely membership in a particular social group, based on her sexual orientation. The claim of the PC is therefore assessed under section 96.

[13] The panel finds that there is a nexus as well for the AC to two of the five Convention grounds. First as a member of a particular social group, that being family of the PC, a bisexual woman. Second, due to the political opinion of the AC, as someone who stopped supporting the APC and began supporting the PDP party. As such, the panel has assessed the claim of the AC under section 96.

Credibility – Principal Claimant’s sexual orientation

[14] The panel is mindful that there is a presumption of truthfulness; when a claimant swears to the truth of their allegations, the allegations are presumed to be true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. The PC was consistent with her narrative as submitted in her Basis of Claim form, and credible in her allegations and the documentary evidence provided. She provided spontaneous details during her testimony that went beyond the information provided in her narrative, and the panel found her testimony to be straight forward and without pretense. As such, the panel considers the PC to be a credible and reliable witness with respect to the material allegations central to her claim regarding her sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation of the PC has been established

[15] The PC alleges that she became aware of her sexual orientation, specifically her attraction to other females, while attending high school in 1994, where she bunked with females at boarding school. She recalled being attracted to the bodies of her classmates and engaging in an intimate relationship with a female classmate, B.Y. for approximately one year. She testified that her parents became aware of her relationship with B.Y. in 1995 when her mother heard her on the phone over the holidays and forced her to go to church for deliverance. She further explained that after her parents became aware she continued to date women but kept her relationships secret. She also recalled the way that her parents and the church spoke negatively about people who engaged in same-sex activity.

[16] The PC has alleged to have been in same-sex relationships from 1994 to present with eight women, and spoke to two of these relationships which were particularly memorable to her during the hearing. The PC recalled her relationship with B.Y. during high school, what she liked about her personality, and how they would spend their time together. The PC recalled a birthday surprise that B.Y. prepared for the PC, gifting her a watch, as she came from a wealthier family. She also recalled her relationship during college with E.J., who once paid for her to return home for the holidays when she did not have the money, and how this was a kindness she would never forget. The panel found that the claimant was able to provide testimony of the depth and detail the panel expects of relationships which occurred while the PC was an adolescent and young adult, and accepts that these relationships occurred as alleged, on a balance of probabilities.

[17] Supporting documents include letters from the PC’s family and friends in Nigeria, as well as friends and colleagues here in Canada. Letters corroborating her realization of her sexual orientation at a young age include those from her mother[5], father[6], sister[7], and friend O.B. from high school[8]. The letter from O.B. confirms that the PC dated B.Y. while in high school, while a letter from the PC’s friend from XXXX, S.I.[9], confirms that she was in a relationship with E.J. as alleged. S.I. provides details of the PC coming out to the author about her sexual orientation, because he had wanted to date her. The panel finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of these documents and assigns them full weight in supporting the PC’s allegations regarding her sexual orientation.

[18] The panel finds that documents and testimony which address the relationships with B.Y. and E.J., are sufficient to establish that the PC has been in same-sex relationships with women while living in Nigeria, on a balance of probabilities. The PC also spoke during the hearing about her experience in Canada as a bisexual woman and has provided many supporting documents from LGBTQ organizations in Canada, letters from her employer, church friends and pastor, as well as social media posts and photos of herself at pride events in Canada, including those where she was featured representing her employer in the parade[10]. The panel finds these documents indicate the PC has been open about her sexual orientation while living in Canada, and support that she is a bisexual woman as alleged.

[19] As such, having established her realization of her sexual orientation, her relationships with women in Nigeria, and her openness about her sexual orientation in Canada, the panel finds that the PC has established on a balance of probabilities, that she is a bisexual woman, as alleged. Accordingly, the panel finds that the PC has established her subjective fear of persecution from the Nigerian authorities, community and her in-laws, due to her sexual orientation as a bisexual woman.

Risk of AC in connection with PC not established

[20] At the outset of the hearing, the AC and PC testified that while the exposure of the PC’s sexual orientation initially caused them to separate, the AC has since come to accept the PC and her sexual orientation, and they now live together here in Canada. During the hearing the panel questioned the AC regarding his risk in association with the PC, due to her sexual orientation becoming public knowledge, given that they are once again in a relationship. The AC testified that he cannot say that his wife’s sexual orientation has affected him as the issues are between his wife and his family, and he loves his wife and will not stop talking to her because of his family’s issues with her sexual orientation. The AC stated that he believes if the police cannot find his wife, they will arrest him. He also testified that while he was in Nigeria, he did not face issues with the police as he returns home late and would not have been home if they came to the house looking for his wife. The panel notes however, that the AC has failed to establish that the police have been looking for him in connection with his wife, either before he left Nigeria or after.

[21] The panel notes that the AC has not outlined a risk in connection to the PC and her sexual orientation in his BOC form[11], nor did his own testimony focus on this risk during the hearing, but rather his risk due to his political activities. The AC has not established that he has received threats in association with his wife, either while residing in Nigeria for 4 months after her sexual orientation was exposed, or since departing Nigeria for Canada. Further, the AC did not leave Nigeria because of his wife’s sexual orientation, but due to his risk as a result of his political activities as alleged. The panel finds that the AC’s fear of being arrested in connection with his wife, absent objective evidence indicating that the police are interested in him due to his wife’s sexual orientation, is speculative. The panel has assessed this further below with respect to a well-founded fear for the AC as the family of a bisexual woman.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

Principal Claimant

[22] Objective evidence supports the PC’s subjective fear, indicating that sexual minorities are persecuted throughout Nigeria by both authorities and members of society.[12] Police may investigate or pursue someone in relation to same-sex activity that has been caught first-hand, if they find written materials or photos on an individual’s phone implicating the person in same-sex activity, or investigation can be arbitrarily based on the individual’s appearance or mannerisms.[13] Individuals with diverse sexual orientations in Nigeria face eviction from their homes, discrimination by healthcare providers, expulsion from school, loss of income, and risks of mob violence, extortion, conversion therapy, sexual abuse, and family rejection.[14] Objective evidence also indicates that same-sex relationships and activities, and groups that would support them, are prohibited throughout the country and punishable by up to 14 years in prison.[15]

[23] Taking into consideration objective country conditions, the panel finds that the PC has established, on a balance of probabilities, an objective basis for her subjective fear of returning to Nigeria, due to her sexual orientation as a bisexual woman. As subjective fear and objective basis for the PC have been established, the panel finds that the PC has established a well-founded fear of persecution by the authorities and society in Nigeria.

Associate Claimant

[24] Objective evidence regarding the treatment of family members of SOGIESC individuals is mixed. Some sources indicate that family members of SOGIESC individuals face discrimination and stigma from society, as well as ostracism and embarrassment from community members and other extended family members.[16] Family members may be cut off from their community, and even face assault in connection with their SOGIESC family member.[17] However, the same source also indicates that some family members of SOGIESC individuals face no risk at all from society, and that the level of risk an individual faces will be dependent on how open they are in their support of their family member, how public their family member is with their sexual orientation, and the profile of that individual within society.[18] Objective evidence also indicates that ill treatment for the family of SOGIESC individuals can decrease if the SOGIESC individual is no longer residing in Nigeria.[19]

[25] The panel has found that risk alleged by the AC in connection with his bisexual wife is speculative. The AC has indicated that he has not had issues with his own family in connection with his wife that would rise to the level of persecution, nor did he face issues with the police or receive other threats while he continued to reside in Nigeria for approximately XXXX months after his wife’s sexual orientation was exposed. Further, there is no evidence indicating that the AC has been threatened or is of interest to the Nigerian authorities or community as a result of his connection to the PC, since he arrived in Canada in 2022. As such, the panel finds that country conditions alone are insufficient to establish that the AC would be subject to more than a mere possibility of treatment rising to the level of persecution as the family of a bisexual woman, if he returned to Nigeria. As subjective fear and objective basis have not been established, on a balance of probabilities, the panel finds that the AC has failed to establish that he holds a well-founded fear of persecution in Nigeria as a family member of the PC.

State Protection

[26] The agent of persecution for the PC is the Nigerian state and society. Objective evidence indicates that the climate of homophobia in Nigeria, which is supported by the criminalization of same-sex sexual activity, has created a measure of impunity for both state and non-state actors. As such, the panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, state protection would be unavailable to the PC. Accordingly, the presumption of state protection for the PC has been rebutted.

Internal Flight Alternative

[27] As noted, an agent of persecution in the claim of the PC is the Nigerian state, who operate throughout the country, and Nigerian society. It is accepted that an internal flight alternative is not viable if a SOGIESC individual must conceal their sexual orientation to live in that location. The panel finds that this would be the case if the PC were to return to Nigeria. As such, the panels finds that there is nowhere in Nigeria where the PC would not face a serious possibility of persecution. As the test for an internal flight alternative fails on the first prong, the panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative for the PC anywhere in Nigeria.

Credibility – Associate Claimant’s political opinion and activities

[28] The AC also puts forward a risk due to his political activity in Nigeria. The AC testified that he is afraid of members of the APC local government who seek to cause him harm for his change in support to the PDP, after the APC failed to fulfil their promises that the AC would be allowed to nominate a candidate for the local government election in 2021. The AC was approached by the PDP to work for them, and he brought with him about 100 followers who would register as PDP supporters. After the AC decamped to the PDP, he was attacked while driving with a colleague to sell a car, and further threatened, causing him to relocate to Port Harcourt, where he was also threatened, causing him to depart Nigeria. The AC fears if he goes back to Nigeria, he will be found because he will continue operating his business to support himself, and can be found via social media, and because he will continue his political activities, which are in his blood.

[29] The panel found the AC’s political knowledge regarding the platforms of the APC and PDP, and structure of politics in Nigeria, to be largely credible. However, the panel has significant credibility concerns relating to the claimant’s material allegations: that he was attacked and threatened due to his decampment from the APC to PDP in XXXX 2021. The panel finds there are several substantial credibility concerns which were more than sufficient to rebut the presumption of truth for the AC, and cause the panel to doubt the veracity of the AC’s allegations.

[30] The PC also testified during the hearing to her husband’s involvement in politics, recalling when he told her he had been betrayed by the APC and intended to switch parties, and that she visited him in the hospital when he was attacked. While the panel accepts that the AC may have been involved in politics in Nigeria to some extent, the panel notes that the PC’s knowledge of the AC’s issues regarding his switch from the APC to the PDP is information which has been self-reported by the AC, and that the PC was not present when the AC was allegedly attacked. The panel has found that the AC’s credibility has been impugned so as to rebut the presumption of truth, and as such, information reported to the PC by the AC, is not reliable and can be assigned no weight in supporting that the AC was targeted by the APC due to his decampment to the PDP.

Fraudulent supporting documents

[31] An affidavit from the claimant’s twin brother, K.A. has been provided.[20] The affidavit appears as a two-page type written document notarized in XXXX, Lagos, on XXXX XXXX, 2023. It consists of 13 numbered paragraphs, and has been signed by the deponent, stamped and signed by the notary office using two stamps, and has a photo of the deponent stapled at the top left of the document. It is accompanied by a voter card for the author, which bears the VIN “XXXX” where the first XXXX in the series of numbers appears with a black smudge over the lower portion of the XXXX. The panel also notes that the text of the card appears to be superimposed onto the card, and that the photo appears on the right side of the card, as opposed to the left side of the card like it normally would, with the text on the left. Voters cards contain a code which indicates delimitation used to determine your polling unit.[21] This card contains a “PU” at the top right of the card, with the number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which should align with delimitation area indicated on the card. This card lacks a delimitation field, and includes an address for the holder in XXXX, Lagos. The PU number indicates a polling unit in Makurdi local government, Benue state, which is inconsistent with an address in Lagos as listed on the card.

[32] Counsel submits that the claimant simply submitted these documents as they were provided to him, and these should not be weighed against his credibility. The panel does not agree. At the outset of the hearing, the AC stated that his twin brother, K.A. helped him to get the documents he provided in support of his claim. When the panel put it’s concerns with the AC’s brother’ voter ID card VIN and appearance, he said he does not know anything about it. The AC has given the panel no explanation that the panel may assess regarding the concerns with the voter card for K.A.. As such, considering the inconsistencies in the format of the card, the information contained in the card itself, as well as the appearance of the card, the panel finds that this card is fraudulent and has been altered for the purpose of this claim, on a balance of probabilities. The panel thus assigns the card and accompanying affidavit no weight and draws negative credibility inference for the submission of such documents.

[33] The panel finds the submission of fraudulent documents in this case especially troubling as the individual this card belongs to is the AC’s brother, who he testified helped him come to Canada and provided all supporting documents to him for his claim. Further, this is the AC’s twin brother, and as such, this card bears a photo which appears very similar to the AC himself. The panel further finds that the connection between the claimant’s brother, and the AC’s remaining documents, allegedly provided to him by his brother, K.A., negatively impacts the credibility of the remaining documents. The panel has also addressed individual credibility concerns in these documents below.

[34] A document from the AC’s friend, J.O. has also been provided.[22] The affidavit appears as a two-page type written document notarized in XXXX, Lagos, on XXXX XXXX, 2022. It consists of 10 numbered paragraphs, and has been signed by the deponent, stamped and signed by the notary office using two stamps, and has a photo of the deponent stapled at the top left of the document. It is accompanied by a voter card for the author, which bears the same VIN, “XXXX”, as the voter card for the AC’s twin brother, K.A., including the same black smudge over the lower portion of the first XXXX. The AC testified that he did not know anything about the identical VINs. The panel also notes the text on this card appears superimposed onto the card and that the photo is appearing on the right instead of the usual left, with the text on the left. NDP item 3.22[23] indicates that each voter card contains a unique VIN, and that voter cards as susceptible to abuse. The panel finds that the voter card for J.O. has been replicated from the card for K.A. for use in this claim, on a balance of probabilities, and that the identical VIN on the voter cards of K.A. and J.O. indicate that both documents are fraudulent. As such, the panel assigns no weight to the affidavit or voter card of J.O., and draws a significant negative credibility inference for the submission of these document.

[35] Also provided is a police report[24] which the AC indicated was obtained by his brother, K.A., after the AC had already left Nigeria. The police report is dated XXXX XXXX, 2022, and contains 4 paragraphs, regarding “Facts of the case” and “Investigation”, as well as a title, and stamp, date and signature at the bottom of the page. The panel notes that the police report appears to have been printed on an inkjet printer and contains a symbol for the Nigeria Police, an elephant with a bird above it surrounded by leaves, which appears smudged. The document contains a telegraphic address of ““XXXX”. There is no telephone number where the word “Telephone:” appears below the address line, and no information corresponding to “In reply please quote” below the telephone line. The panel finds that these inconsistencies cast doubt on the authenticity of the document. As such, the panel assigns no weight to this police report. The panel further finds that the police report is not authentic, and has been drafted for the purpose of supporting this claim. The panel finds that the submission or this not authentic document further undermines the credibility of the AC.

[36] A text message dated XXXX XXXX, 2021, and appearing to have come from someone that may be J.O., based on the name at the top of the screen, has also been provided.[25] The panel notes that there are no messages above the most recent message, though the most recent message does not appear at the top of the screen, as it would at the beginning of a new conversation, indicating to the panel that this document has been altered, and is not authentic. The message indicates that the AC should leave Lagos as he has been marked for elimination. The AC indicates in his narrative that he received a call from J.O. that he was marked for elimination, and not to disclose him to anyone, and testified regarding this call during the hearing. The panel questioned the AC regarding the text message, as he had stated he received a call from J.O., not a text message. The AC indicated he first got a call, and later a text message from J.O.. The panel does not find this reasonably explains the inconsistency between the supporting documents and the testimony and narrative of the AC. The panel has already found the letter from J.O. to be fraudulent. As this text message from J.O. is inherently connected to the fraudulent letter from J.O., and due to the panel’s finding that this document is not authentic, and further the inconsistency between the testimony of the AC and this document, the panel assigns the text message no weight in speaking to the AC’s allegations.

[37] An affidavit from a friend of the AC, A.O. has been provided, accompanied by a national identification number slip, and PDP membership card.[26] The affidavit is dated XXXX XXXX, 2023, and contains 10 paragraphs over two pages, with a photo of the deponent at the top left of the first page, and notary public stamps on both pages. The panel notes that the introductory sentence at the outset of the affidavit is askew and the font changes size throughout the sentence, as if having been stretched. This indicates to the panel that this document has been altered and is not authentic. Further, the panel notes that the ID slip accompanying the document, contains the same photo as the photo stapled to the affidavit. The photo on the ID slip appears to be laid on top of the ID slip and not affixed to the slip. The panel finds this concerning as it is unclear whether the photo laid over the slip is the original photo affixed to the slip. The panel therefore finds that the ID slip may have been altered and is not authentic.

[38] When the panel put its concerns regarding the documents from A.O. to the AC, he indicated that he did not know anything about the ID slip picture, but that he requested that his brother obtain proof from people who were aware of what happened to him. The AC also stated that this is the receipt as opposed to the original slip, and that you can go online and print the receipt before you get the original, and this is accepted as ID. The panel does not find that the AC’s explanation reasonably explains the panel’s concerns, as it does not address whether the photo laid on top of the ID slip is that of the original slip, or why it would not be affixed to the slip. Additionally, as these documents were alleged to have been provided by K.A., the panel is conscious of the fact that they are thus connected to other fraudulent documents in this claim and assigns them no weight. Again, the panel has drawn negative credibility inference for the submission of fraudulent documents in support of this claim.

[39] An affidavit from the AC’s cousin[27], S.C. has been provided, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022, containing 12 type written paragraphs over two pages, with a photo stapled at the top left and a notary public stamp on both pages, signed by both the notary and deponent on the second page. The panel notes that the photo appears to have holes in it from previously being stapled. There is also a paper seal stamp on the second page, which does not appear to have any information contained in it and is blurry. There are also grammatical and typographical errors throughout the document. The document is accompanied by a national identification number slip, which the panel notes is nearly unreadable due to the photo of the slip appearing blurry and pixelated. As such, the panel has been unable to assess the photo or biographical information contained in the ID slip compared to that of the affidavit. Considering the panel’s concerns with the affidavit, the panel’s inability to assess the ID slip, and that these documents were provided by K.A., the panel gives these documents no weight, finding them to be unreliable, and on a balance of probabilities, not authentic.

[40] An affidavit from the AC’s friend, M.I.[28], has also been provided, dated XXXX XXXX, 2023, and notarized by the same notary as the affidavit from S.C., assessed above. Again, this document contains a paper seal stamp which is blurry and does not appear to contain any information. The affidavit has a photo stapled at the top left of the first page, and is accompanied by an APC membership registration form for M.I.. The panel notes that the APC membership slip shows a date of registration “23-02-2021”, whereas the affidavit indicates that the author joined the APC with the AC in 2012. The letter also refers to the APC as the “All progressive congress”, while the membership slip states “ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS”. The panel finds this concerning in that the author of this letter states to be a member of the party, and yet refers to the party differently than the membership slip does, which is purported to be an official document drafted by the party. The panel’s concerns regarding the content in the affidavit compared to the membership slip, in combination with these documents being provided by K.A., lead the panel to doubt their authenticity, and assign them no weight.

[41] An affidavit from the AC’s colleague, A.A., has also been provided, accompanied by a national identification number slip.[29] The affidavit is dated XXXX XXXX, 2022 and is signed and stamped by a notary public, which is the same notary used for the affidavit of A.O.. The affidavit is 10 type-written paragraphs over two pages, with a photo at the top left of the first page. The panel notes that the photo appears to have holes from being previously stapled, and the affidavit refers to the deponent by his surname and middle name, omitting his first name. Accompanying the affidavit is a national identification number slip, which is black and white as opposed to colour, preventing the panel from fully assessing the photo of the ID holder to the photo on the affidavit. The panel asked the AC why the affidavit refers to A.A. using his middle name and omits his first name. The AC stated that the middle name listed on the ID slip is his first name. The panel does not find this explanation reasonably explains why the deponent’s legal first name according to his ID slip, is not included in the affidavit. The panel’s concerns regarding the photo on the affidavit and the name discrepancy between the ID slip and affidavit, which was not reasonably explained by the AC, lead the panel to doubt the authenticity of these documents, and as such they are assigned no weight.

[42] Also provided is a medical report for the AC, from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX/2021, indicating that the AC was admitted on XXXX XXXX XXXX/2021 around XXXX XXXX XXXX, and describes his injuries and treatment.[30] The report is signed, stamped and dated. The panel notes that the stamp for the signature contains a different address than that of the letter head. The panel also notes that the report appears to have been printed on an inkjet printer, and at the top of the letter are “Our Ref:”, “Your Ref:” and “Date:” fields, which are not filled. The report also contains no reference numbers or biographic information for the patient other than his name. The letter also contains two opening address lines, stating “To whom it may concern,” and “Sir,” one after the other. The panel finds the formatting of the letter, the lack of biographical information for the patient, as well as the inconsistencies between the stamp and letter head, detract from the document’s reliability as a medical document, and lead the panel to believe this document is not an authentic medical report. As such, it is assigned no weight.

[43] A cash receipt for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is also provided[31], which contains the AC’s name and address, as well as the same stamp used on the medical report above. The panel notes that not only is the stamp the same but the date and signature within the stamp appear very similar to those of the medical report. The panel finds that this indicates these documents were signed and stamped by the same person. As the panel has found the medical report unreliable and not authentic, and the cash receipt appears to have originated from the same individual, the panel finds the reliability of the receipt is also in question. As such, the panel assigns the receipt no weight in speaking to the allegations of the AC.

[44] Also provided is a letter from the PDP, dated XXXX XXXX, 2021. The letter appears to be printed by a colour inkjet printer and contains the umbrella symbol of the PDP at top left of the page. Next to this is the party name, and motto “Justice, unity and progress”. The panel notes that the motto of the PDP is “Justice, unity, progress” with no “and”. The panel notes that the body of the letter, despite being titled “Letter of Invitation & Appointment”, contains no title or position that the AC is being appointed to, and refers to the APC as the “All progressive congress” as opposed to the All Progressives Congress. These discrepancies lead the panel to doubt the authenticity of the letter, and accordingly it has been assigned no weight in speaking to the allegations of the AC.

Remaining evidence insufficient to overcome credibility concerns

[45] While not determinative on their own, the panel finds that the AC’s lack of credibility is not remedied by the following remaining documents provided in support of his claim.

[46] Photos of the AC depict him wearing APC branded clothing.[32] An APC membership registration slip has also been provided.[33] The claimant testified the photos were taken at the office of the Governor of Lagos state during a convention where the candidates are declared unopposed for the coming election. The panel accepts that the AC may have been involved with the APC to some extent while living in Nigeria, and these photos may support that political profile. However, the panel does not find that these photos support the material aspects of this claim, namely that the AC was attacked due to his switch from the APC to the PDP, on a balance of probabilities. Further, these photos are insufficient to establish the AC’s credibility considering the panel’s significant credibility concerns stemming from the AC’s submission of multiple fraudulent documents in support of his claim.

[47] The claimant also provided an assessment report from a registered XXXX.[34] The report, dated XXXX XXXX, 2023 says that the XXXX and the AC completed one session on XXXX XXXX, 2023, and that the AC experiences symptoms of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, including XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.[35] There are no official diagnoses made in the report, nor any indication that the AC has previously been diagnosed with any XXXX XXXX condition. The panel notes that the XXXX is not in any better a position than this panel to know whether the allegations made by the AC are true, on a balance of probabilities.[36] Moreover, the XXXX did not have before them all the evidence that is before this panel, including the AC’s documents and explanations for the fraudulent documents on file. Accordingly, the panel finds the report insufficient to establish the AC’s allegations, on a balance of probabilities.

[48] The panel has considered the information in the report and is mindful that XXXX XXXX concerns can impact an individual’s ability to testify before the Board based on several intersecting factors. While the panel accepts the symptoms listed in the report, there is no indication in the report as to how these symptoms would undermine the AC’s ability to provide credible testimony and supporting documents, or to credibly explain discrepancies and inconsistencies within the supporting documents provided. As such, the panel does not find that the XXXX report explains or overcome the panel’s credibility concerns.

[49] Two medical reports from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX., dated XXXX XXXX, 2023, and XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2023, indicate that the AC attended these clinics for pain in his XXXX and XXXX, as well as XXXX XXXX XXXX while residing in Canada.[37] The panel does not find that these documents speak to the material allegations of the AC’s claim, and as such has assigned these documents no weight in this regard. Further, the panel does not find these documents explain or overcome the panel’s credibility concerns.

[50] A photo of a damaged vehicle has been provided[38], depicting a XXXX SUV with license plate which is difficult to make out, but may partially read “XXXX”. The vehicle has damage to the front bumper and appears to be partially off the roadway, with unidentified people in the background. The panel does not find that the AC has credibly established that he is associated with this vehicle, when or where this phot was taken, how the damage happened to the vehicle, or that the damage occurred on the date the photo was taken. Accordingly, the panel assigns no weight to this photo, and does not find it overcomes the panel’s credibility concerns.

[51] Also provided are receipts for a transport ticket from Lagos to Port Harcourt, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX/2021 and accommodation at XXXX XXXX in Port Harcourt dated XXXX XXXX XXXX/2021.[39] Again, the panel does not find these documents establish the material aspects of the AC’s claim, being that he was targeted due to his switch from the APC to PDP, or that travel to Port Harcourt from Lagos was as a result of the claimant’s political activities, on a balance of probabilities. As such, these documents are not sufficient to overcome the panel’s credibility concerns.

[52] A photo of an individual in what appears to be a hospital bed, attached to an IV, with another individual looking towards the individual in the bed, has been provided.[40] The AC alleges that this photo is of him after he was attacked in his vehicle. The panel notes that based on the angle of the photo it is unclear who is in the bed, and whether or not it is the AC. Further, it is unclear when or where this photo was taken, or what the individual in the bed is being treated for. The panel does not find the photo establishes the material aspects of the AC’s claim or serves to overcome the panel’s credibility concerns.

[53] A second text message has also been provided, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022, from a XXXX XXXX phone number.[41] The panel notes that there are no messages above the move recent message, though the most recent message does not appear at the top of the screen, as it would at the beginning of a new conversation. This indicates to the panel that this document has been altered and is not authentic. The message states that the sender knows the AC is in Port Harcourt, and will find him and take his life. It is unclear who sent the text message or what their motive is for sending the message. The panel’s concerns with he authenticity of this document, in combination with the panel’s existing credibility concerns identified with respect to the AC’s supporting documents and testimony, lead the panel to assign this document no weight in speaking to the material allegations of the AC.

The associate claimant is not credible

[54] The AC has submitted more than 10 documents which the panel has been found to be fraudulent, due to inconsistencies in the documents, as well as signs of alterations to the documents themselves. The AC has provided no reasonable explanations for the panel’s concerns with these documents. The panel finds the submission of these fraudulent documents concerning in two ways. First, it erodes the credibility of the AC, as the AC has demonstrated he is willing to provide numerous non-genuine documents. Second, the allegations the documents intend to support, that the AC is being sought by members of an opposing political party, become doubtful. The panel draws substantial negative credibility inferences for both reasons.

[55] In addition, the panel has considered the AC’s level of sophistication, including his education up to the secondary school level, his work experience as a business owner and political activity in Nigeria, as well as the XXXX assessment on file. The panel notes that the AC has been represented by counsel throughout his refugee protection claim, and that he is living with and appears to have the support of his wife, the PC, who is making her own claim for protection, is educated and employed in the XXXX industry, and is represented by counsel of her own. The panel does not find that a lack of sophistication, understanding, education, or awareness can reasonably explain any of the identified credibility issues.

[56] As such, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the AC is not credible. The numerous credibility concerns examined above, which are central to the core of the claim, cause the panel to doubt the veracity of all the AC’s allegations. The panel therefore finds that the central allegations of the claim have not been established, on a balance of probabilities. There is insufficient evidence demonstrating that the AC would face a risk outlined in section 96 or section 97 of IRPA, should he return to Nigeria.

CONCLUSION

[57] Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the PC has established that she would face a serious possibility of persecution in Nigeria based on a Convention ground, namely membership in a particular social group as a bisexual woman. The panel therefore finds that the PC is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. Accordingly, her claim is accepted.

[58] The panel finds that the AC has not established that he would face a serious possibility of persecution in Nigeria pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, nor that he would, on a balance of probabilities, be personally subject to one of the harms described in section 97(1) of the IRPA in Nigeria. Accordingly, the panel finds that the AC is not a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. Accordingly, his claim is rejected.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

[1] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).

[2] Items referenced herein remain in the updated version of the NDP for Nigeria, and while their item numbers may have changed, the panel has continued to refer to them as they are numbered in the May 31, 2024 version.

[3] Exhibit 2.1, Basis of Claim Form – TC2-26104 (with amended BOC narrative), Exhibit 2.2, Basis of Claim Form – TC2-13484.

[4] Exhibit 1, Claim referral information from CBSA/IRCC, Exhibit 4, ICAC Scheduling Ready Package.

[5] Exhibit 5.4, Claimants’ disclosure – TC2-26104 personal documents.

[6] Exhibit 5.6, Claimants’ disclosure – TC2-26104 personal documents.

[7] Exhibit 5.4, Claimants’ disclosure – TC2-26104 personal documents.

[8] Exhibit 5.4, Claimants’ disclosure – TC2-26104 personal documents.

[9] Exhibit 5.4, Claimants’ disclosure – TC2-26104 personal documents.

[10] Exhibits 5.1, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, Claimants’ disclosure – TC2-26104 personal documents.

[11] Exhibit 2.2, Basis of Claim Form – TC2-13484.

[12] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package Nigeria, May 31, 2024, Item 6.1 NGA200343.E.

[13] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package Nigeria, May 31, 2024, Item 6.8 NGA105655.E.

[14] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package Nigeria, May 31, 2024, Item 6.7 NGA105219.E; Item 6.12 ​Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE), Item 6.17 NGA201198.E.

[15] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package Nigeria, May 31, 2024, Item 6.4 Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act, 2013; Item 6.12 Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE).

[16] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package Nigeria, May 31, 2024, Item 6.17 NGA201198.E, 6.12 Country Policy and Information Note. Nigeria: Sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE), Item 6.11 The Situation of Sexual and Gender Minorities in Nigeria (2014-2018).

[17] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package Nigeria, May 31, 2024, Item 6.11 The Situation of Sexual and Gender Minorities in Nigeria (2014-2018).

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[21] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package Nigeria, May 31, 2024, Item 3.22 NGA105486.E.

[22] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[23] Exhibit 3.1, National Documentation Package Nigeria, May 31, 2024, Item 3.22 NGA105486.E.

[24] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[25] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[26] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[27] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[28] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[29] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[30] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[31] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[32] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[33] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[34] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[35] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[36] Abiodun v. Canada (MCI), 2011 FC 822, at para. 22.

[37] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[38] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[39] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[40] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.

[41] Exhibit 5.2, Claimant’s disclosure – TC2-13484 personal documents.