Citation: 2019 RLLR 150
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 28, 2019
Panel: Joshua Prowse
Counsel for the Claimant(s):
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: VB8-01902
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2022-00210
ATIP Pages: 000156-000163
— PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED
[1] PRESIDING MEMBER: This is the decision in the claim for refugee protection made in File VB8-01902. That is the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX and her two children.
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The specifics of this case are stated in the narrative of your Basis of Claim form. In short you state that you left Nigeria because of history of domestic violence that you faced as well as risk of female genital mutilation or FGM for the minor Claimant who is part of this proceeding.
[3] In assessing this case, I considered the following Chairperson’s guidelines. Guideline 3 on child refugee claimants. Guideline 4 on women refugee claimants.
DETERMINATION
[4] I find that you are Convention refugees.
IDENTITY
[5] Your personal identity and your identities as a citizen of Nigeria are established by your testimony and the supporting documentation filed, principally copies of your passports which are on file at Exhibit 1.
OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT COUNTRY CONDITIONS
[6] I will start assessing your allegations that you face a serious possibility of persecution in Nigeria by examining the context of the country conditions relevant to your situation. There are a number of documents about female genital mutilation, it’s prevalence in Nigeria and the state response to it. I note the Response to Information Request that is on file entitled Prevalence of female genital mutilation among the Urhobo including consequences for refusing to undergo this procedure, particular pregnant women. State protection available. And that document which makes a number of general comments and reviews evidence about the response to FGM including in Lagos area. And it states that FGM is still deeply entrenched in the Nigerian society. It describes it as widespread and rampant and it notes that according to one source 41 percent of adult women in Nigeria have undergone some form of FGM and that FGM is more prevalent in the southern states of Nigeria.
[7] A question also arises, and I’ll touch on this a little bit later but partly now, about the extent of the legislation and state response involving FGM. There’s a document on file at 5.32 of the National Documentation Package from the United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF entitled Country Profile FGM in Nigeria, October 2016. It’s also from an organization 28 Too Many which is an anti-FGM advocacy organization. And it notes at page 3 of that document that more than 20 million women and girls have been cut or are at risk of being cut and it discusses the nature of the legislation relating to FGM in Nigeria. At page 52 of that document it notes that while there is federal legislation, which is referred to by it’ s acronym the VAPP, V-A-P-P. That is a federal law and therefore it’s only effective in the federal territory of Abuja and that while each individual state in this case, Lagos, where the Claimants’ were last residing have passed legislation. Though the nature of that legislation varies and in some states there isn’t specific legislation related to FGM. In Lagos there is but there are reportedly significant problems with it’s enforcement.
[8] The US Department of State reports that police often refuse to protect women when “the level of alleged abuse did not exceed customary norms in the area.” And that generally speaking effective enforcement of such laws has been wanting.
[9] There’s a second aspect to this claim which involves violence, domestic violence being inflicted upon the Principal Claimant and her son and this something that has been ongoing and has reportedly affected them for a number of years. We have information on file in the National Documentation Package about the prevalence of domestic violence and recourse and options available to those who experience it. For example there’s a Response to Information request entitled Nigeria – Domestic Violence including Lagos state legislation recourse, state protection and services available to victims. And it discusses the fact that domestic violence as in, perhaps both countries, is quite prevalent but it also discusses a situation in which the state response available for those who experience domestic violence is quite limited. That there are very few services such as shelters available in the country and it describes the situation in which authorities such as the police and the courts are generally unaware of many key laws that are on the books but effectively unenforced.
[10] Given this evidence, I conclude that there is an objective basis to the allegations before me. The risk that has been described is consistent with information on file about the treatment of others in Nigeria.
DO YOU FACE A SERIOUS POSSIBILITY OF PERSECUTION?
[11] A claimant has the burden to induce evidence which shows they face a serious possibility of future persecution. This must be credible and believable evidence. Given my conclusion about the general country conditions, the questions for me to assess in order to determine these Claimants individual risks were first is it credible that they, in particularly the Principal Claimant have been subjected to domestic violence while they have been in Nigeria. And secondly is there a forward looking risk of circumcision for the female minor Claimant and violence attendant to that circumcision for the other Claimants should they refuse to partake in the procedure. And in general when assessing these issues I will say that I found the Claimants to be credible witnesses and I therefore believe what they have alleged in support of their claims.
[12] In assessing credibility in a refugee claim we start from the presumption that claimants and their allegations are credible. This presumption reflects the fact that claimants are providing sworn testimony and that circumstances facing fleeing refugees can compromise their ability to present corroborative evidence. In assessing whether a claimant’s statements are believable we consider whether the facts presented are detailed, plausible and consistent.
[13] These criteria are met in this case as the Claimants relayed their testimony convincingly both in writing and orally. And as I’ve stated their allegations are also consistent with information on file about country conditions.
[14] I asked some specific questions turning first to the allegations about domestic violence. Their testimony was consistent about this. The Principal Claimant’s son testified about what he has observed and what he fears in this respect. There’s corroborating documents on file including from a friend of the Principal Claimant who corroborates the statements about the domestic violence that this family has been subjected to over a significant period of time at the hands of Principal Claimant’s ex-spouse.
[15] And the Claimants state that they ran away from this ex-spouse about a year before leaving Nigeria and then coming to North America. I asked a number of questions about this. The Claimants continued their schooling over this period. How were they able to afford this sort of schooling? How were they able to afford visa applications? How were they able to afford international travel including to Benin then the United States during this period. And all of the Claimants’ answers on in terms of those types of questions were satisfactory, in my view. The Claimants received financial aid from a comparatively wealthy friend of the Principal Claimant who the Principal Claimant has known since she was a very young girl. This friend took the Principal Claimant and her children in. Supported them and facilitated their exit from the country. The minor Claimants did not need to pay for schooling at this time as they were attending a state school and in fact they switched what school, for instance the male child was in around the time of their move away from the ex-partner’s home and towards Lagos and they are completely consistent between their testimony and the other documents on file in this respect.
[16] The male Claimant says he last saw his father in 2015 and that the family went to the United States because his dad wanted to circumcise his younger sister. Which takes me to the second question that I considered in terms of the credibility of specific allegations. That’s the risk of circumcision for the minor Claimant in these proceedings. I have the Claimant’s sworn and consistent testimony in this respect that the agent of persecution inflicted and arranged to inflict FGM on another one of the Principal Claimant’s children. That child died from the procedure. I have corroborating documents related to that death. Including a medical report which describes it in detail. And further more this is a claim in which I have a number of corroborating documents related to the ongoing risk to these Claimants and the way that the principal agent of persecution has pursued them and in their absence from Nigeria has pursued the Principal Claimant’s friend who was instrumental in facilitating their exit from the country. I have a medial report at Exhibit 5 regarding injuries that this friend suffered as recently as last month as a result of thugs that the agent of persecution hired to pursue her and attempt to obtain information about the Claimants whereabouts. I have a police report that this individual filed about the fact that she was pursued by these thugs which names the principal agent of persecution in the police report. I have a detailed Basis of Claim amendment which includes corrections and was updated to reflect recent circumstances and I also have a number of statements on file including an affidavit from the Principal Claimant’s friend, XXXX (ph.). And I have bank statements, psychotherapist’s letter and a sworn declaration.
[17] In sum I accept that these Claimants face a violence at the hands of the Principal Claimant’s ex-partner who is seeking to inflict FGM on the minor Claimant and who has generally been abusive towards both the Principal Claimant and the children of their relationship and is not content to see these individuals move on from the relationship. Given the past persecution, the persecution of those similarly situated to them, I conclude that there is a serious possibility of these Claimants being persecuted should they return to Nigeria.
DOES THE HARM THAT YOU FACE UPON TO NIGERIA AMOUNT TO PERSECUTION?
[18] The harm that a refugee fears must be persecution. And our refugee law, persecution can be considered the sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights. The circumstances that you face implicate in a sustained or systemic manner a number of such rights. This includes the right to life which is illustrated by the fact that one of the Principal Claimant’s children already died when FGM was inflicted upon her. This is protected in Article 6 of the Internal Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provides that every human being has the inherent right to life. This is also relates the freedom from domestic violence and gender based violence is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men. And this is discrimination within the meaning of the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
[19] A situation involving such rights violations will be persecutory if it has substantially prejudicial effects for persons concerned. And it’s clear that that is the case here. The Claimants write eloquently in their narrative at paragraph 48 in that “I am afraid to return to Nigeria because I know my partner and his family are still looking for me and may children. I know that if XXXX (ph.) found us he would harm or mistreat us and force my daughter to be circumcised. For these reasons I seek protection in Canada.
[20] Given these statements that the Claimants fear returning to Nigeria and their description of the harm that they have experienced and have anticipated upon return, I find that they subjectively fear returning to Nigeria and I conclude that the harm that they fear about is persecution.
[21] When reaching this conclusion I did consider the fact that they spent some time in the United States prior to claiming in Canada. In fact they spent a significant amount of time there and ultimately stayed beyond the expiry of and validity period for their US visa. I don’t find that I should draw a negative inference about the credibility of the Claimants’ subjective fears of persecution in Nigeria, at that point, for several reasons. First two of the Claimants are quite young at that time. A minor Claimant and another who just reached the age of majority of that period and then for the Principal Claimant she’s quite a vulnerable individual. She does — she’s functionally illiterate, has no history of schooling in Nigeria. Was dependant upon others for advice and was deterred from claiming apparently for financial reasons. I find that in the circumstances the Claimants have amply and reasonably explained their failure to claim refugee protection in United States at the time that they did.
ARE YOUR FEARS BY REASON OF ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS IN THE REFUGEE CONVENTION?
[22] In order to qualify for refugee status under the Refugee Convention, an individual must demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of persecution “for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”
[23] I conclude that this requirement is met in your cases as your fears of persecution in Nigeria relate to the Convention grounds first of particular social group related to the particular social group of women. And second for the male Claimant the particular social group of the family. It’s clear that the domestic violence that the Principal Claimant has experienced and the female genital mutilation that the minor Claimant stands to experience, is something that is disproportionally inflicted upon women and also it is something where the state response is disproportionally anemic because of the gender of the victims of those practices.
STATE PROTECTION
[24] The refugee definition specifically requires that each refugee establish that they are “unable or by reason of their fear, unwilling to unveil themselves of the protection of their country.” It is the duty of all states to offer protection to their nationals. Refugee protection only becomes available when a claimant’s country of nationality fails in the performance of this duty. These Claimant’s have evidence which demonstrates that this requirement is met in their cases as they are unable to avail themselves of the protection of their country.
[25] And I have a number of documents about this. But with respect to the enforcement of anti- FGM legislation in Nigeria the Response to Information that I quoted earlier on the prevalence of female genital mutilation among the Urhobo states that — has a bunch of more general statements about FGM, starting at page 6 of that report. It states that no cases of legal prosecution of people who have been subjected to girls or women to FGM have been documented in Nigeria. And that even in Nigerian states that have legal provisions in place to prosecute the perpetrators of FGM either under general or specific criminal laws, prosecutions are very rare.
[26] Counsel provided a summary of some of the country conditions with respect to state protection in his submissions. He noted that the UK Home Office report at 1.7 of the National Documentation Package indicates that the effectiveness of state protection is undermine by a lack of resources, by corruption and that women face pervasive discrimination in attempting to access such state protection and that the bribery rate for police among those who wish to access police protection is nearly 50 percent. And I find that this is particular relevant given that fact that this agent of persecution is connected to politicians in the country.
[27] In short there is clear and convincing evidence before me that Nigeria will not afford these Claimants the protection we expect of a state and that they are consequently unable to obtain adequate protection from their country.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE
[28] When considering whether you have an internal flight alternative we ask whether there is a part of your country in which you would not face a serious possibility of persecution and whether it would be reasonable to expect you to move there. I conclude that you do not possess a viable internal flight alternatives in your country.
[29] This is for several reasons. In terms of the Principal Claimant, in my view, there are evident issues related to the reasonableness of any internal flight alternative. She is illiterate, uneducated, single women with children without any work experience outside of the home. However this is tempered by the fact that she would be relocated with her adult child who is in his early XXXX XXXX male child with above average education in Nigeria and in my view the analysis of the reasonableness of any relocation would be complicated by that fact. However it’ s not necessary for me to consider the reasonableness of relocation in this case because I find the viability of an internal flight alternative fails on the first prong of the analysis. The internal flight alternative location identified in this case, Port Harcourt, is one where there would remain a serious possibility of persecution for these Claimants by reason of the fact that the agent of persecution would be able to track them down and locate them in Port Harcourt through the Claimant’s friend who resides in Lagos.
[30] The Federal Court jurisprudence is clear that this Board cannot expect an individual to have to make a secret return to their country or a return where they are excluded from their support groups, from their friends, for their family members. Counsel directed me to the case of Ohakam 2011 FC1351 and I find that the principal coming out of that case is directly applicable to the circumstances before me. The Principal Claimant’s best friend, one who she is in frequent contact with, is located in Lagos while this friend has not divulged information about the Claimants’ whereabouts to date, it cannot be expected that this friend would be able to refrain from doing so indefinitely. Especially in light of the evidence before me that the agent of persecution has engaged in an ongoing campaign of harassment, threats and the hiring of thugs to intimidate her in order to obtain such information. As these Claimants would not be able to escape a serious possibility of mistreatment by internal relocation, I conclude that they do not possess a viable internal flight alternative in Nigeria.
CONCLUSION
[31] In conclusion I find that the Claimants are Convention refugees and I accept their claims. That concludes today’s hearing. We are now off the record.
—PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED