Citation: 2020 RLLR 125
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 11, 2020
Panel: S. Williams
Counsel for the Claimant(s): A. Akinyemi
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: TB8-15998
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000048-000056
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of [XXX] who claims to be a citizen of Nigeria, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1]
[2] In rendering these reasons, the panel has considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution,[2] and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.[3]
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The claimant alleges that she faces persecution at the hands of Nigerian authorities and members of Nigerian society on account of her sexual orientation as a lesbian. The claimant also alleged that she faces a risk of forced female genital mutilation (FGM) at the hands of her paternal relatives.
[4] While the claimant has identified a fear of FGM, the panel finds that the determinative issue in this claim is the claimant’s sexual orientation. Therefore, the reasons for this decision are centered on findings about the claimant’s profile as a lesbian. The panel will not render findings surrounding the claimant’s fear of FGM.
DETERMINATION
[5] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee as she has established a serious possibility of persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group, as a lesbian woman.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[6] The panel finds that the claimant’s identity as a national of Nigeria is established by the claimant’s oral testimony and documents filed in evidence, including the claimant’s Nigerian Birth Certificate.[4]
Credibility
[7] The panel finds the claimant to be a credible witness and therefore accepts what the claimant has alleged in support of her claim. When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reason to doubt their truthfulness.[5] The claimant testified in a straightforward manner and, there were no relevant inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony or contradictions between testimony and the other evidence before the panel which have not been satisfactorily explained.
[8] The claimant testified that while she was in Nigeria she came to realise her sexual orientation, that she is a lesbian, at the age of 10 or 11 years old. She stated that she initially thought something was wrong with her because all of her friends would talk about boys, yet she would think about girls. The claimant testified about the challenges she faced in Nigeria, stating that she would often try to hide herself and stay away from people that she found attractive. The claimant testified that her parents hold strong religious values and she was aware that her sexual orientation would not be accepted in her community.
[9] The claimant stated that she eventually confided in her mother about her sexual orientation. However, at that time, the more pressing matter that was concerning the claimant’s mother was fear of forced FGM of the claimant. The claimant stated that her paternal grandmother comes from a line of traditional worshipers who carry out female genital mutilation. The claimant alleged that her paternal relatives attempted to force her to undergo FGM, with the intention of subjecting the claimant to the FGM procedure in [XXX] 2015. The claimant alleged that her mother arranged for her to flee Nigeria on [XXX] 2015 at the age [XXX] years old in order to avoid forced FGM.
[10] The claimant moved to the United States where she resided, without legal status, in the care of her mother’s cousin, Ms. E. The claimant alleged that while in United States, she became involved in a romantic relationship with a same sex partner in [XXX] 2015. The claimant testified that she was confronted by Ms. E on [XXX] 2018, regarding the nature of her relationship with her female friend from school, at which time the claimant admitted that she was involved in a same sex relationship with this female. The claimant alleged that Ms. E became upset about her sexual orientation and told the claimant to leave her home immediately. The claimant then fled to Canada where she had family friends. The claimant arrived in Canada on [XXX] 2018.
[11] The claimant stated that her relatives in Nigeria have become aware of her sexual orientation and her father has disowned her. The claimant stated that members of her family and community in Nigeria have vowed to kill her for bringing shame to the family name.
Failure to Claim Asylum Does Not Undermine the Claimant’s Subjective Fear
[12] The claimant testified that she resided in United States between the period of [XXX] 2015 to [XXX] 2018 and did not claim asylum. The claimant testified that the reason she did not claim asylum upon arrival in United States is because she did not know anything about asylum. She stated that as she became older, she realized she did not have legal status in United States however she was unaware that she could speak with a lawyer to apply for legal status. The claimant testified that she never tried to claim asylum because she did not know how to do so. The claimant testified that she also experienced fear that she may not be granted legal status in the United States. She stated that these fears stemmed from her understanding of the president of the United States administrative views on immigrants at the time.
[13] The panel has assessed whether the claimant’s failure to claim asylum in United States immediately upon entry to United States undermines the claimant’s subjective fear. Considering the claimant’s personal circumstances, including the fact that she was [XXX] years old upon arrival in united states, traveled to united states on her own, had limited education, and was allegedly fleeing a risk of gender-based violence, the panel finds that the claimant’s explanation for not claiming asylum upon entry to United States is reasonable. The panel has considered whether the claimant’s failure to claim asylum in United States when she became older undermines the claimant’s subjective fear. The claimant was born [XXX] and turned [XXX] years old in July 2018. The claimant entered Canada on [XXX] 2018. Therefore, the claimant was a minor during the entire time spent residing in United States. Considering the claimant’ s age, level of maturity, lack of parental accompaniment, and limited knowledge of the United State’s asylum claim system, the panel finds that the claimant’s explanation for failure to claim asylum, after spending approximately two and a half years in United States, is satisfactory. Therefore, the panel finds that the claimant’s failure to claim asylum in United States does not undermine the claimant’s subjective fear.
Status in United States
[14] The claimant testified that she entered the United States illegally by use of travel documents belonging to her cousin, who is a citizen of United States. The claimant testified that she does not have any form of legal status in United States and has never applied for legal status in United States. RPD search results revealed no history of Temporary Visa Application attached to the claimant’s name. Fingerprints of the claimant submitted to the US Department of Homeland Security database resulted in a result of ‘no match’. In light of the evidence before the panel, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant does not have legal status in United States.
Documentary Evidence
[15] The claimant was asked whether she has any documentary evidence to demonstrate communications with her former same sex partner who she dated in United States. The claimant testified that she does not have any evidence of communications as she deleted the messages. The claimant testified that the reason she deleted all messages between herself and her former partner was due to the fact that she tried to be as discreet as possible. The claimant stated that her family members openly expressed disgust for any form of homosexual activity. The claimant testified that she kept her same sex relationship a secret from her relatives in United States. The panel finds the claimant’s explanation for a lack of documentary evidence to be reasonable. Considering that the claimant was residing in a familial environment that was discriminatory towards lesbian and gay individuals, the panel finds that it is reasonable that the claimant would delete evidence of communications between herself and her same sex partner.
[16] The clamant provided support letters from her mother and cousin, including photo identification of each.[6] The letters corroborate the information provided in the claimant’s claim.
LGBTQ+ Services and Experience in Canada
[17] The claimant testified that she is not aware of any LGBTQ+ organizations in Canada. She stated that she has never considered attending any type of LGBTQ+ services as she is not used to engaging in such programs. The claimant declared that she wants to be open about her sexuality in Canada however she finds it challenging to be completely open about her sexuality after having to be secretive about her sexual orientation for her entire life. The claimant testified that she does not use any social media apps to meet people in Canada. The claimant testified that she was involved in two same sex relationships during her adolescence and at this time she is single and not interested in entering a relationship at this time.
[18] The panel finds the claimant to be a credible witness and accepts that the above noted events have occurred as alleged by the claimant in her oral and written testimonies. Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that she is a lesbian woman.
Objective Basis
[19] The panel has assessed the objective basis for the claimant’s fear of persecution in Nigeria. In making the assessment, the panel must consider the claimant’s personal circumstances and vulnerabilities, and in this regard, the panel refers to the UNHCR Handbook. Guidance from the UNHCR Handbook on Determining Refugee Status, and Canadian jurisprudence, indicates that discrimination can amount to persecution cumulatively when the following conditions are met. First, there must be a number of discriminatory acts which take place in a general atmosphere of insecurity in the country of origin. The discriminatory acts must be of such a nature that they are substantially prejudicial to the person concerned. Where the cumulative nature of discrimination results in an insecure future for the person concerned, this constitutes persecution.
[20] The documentary evidence clearly states that same sex relationships are criminalized in Nigeria. The Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act enacted in January 2014, effectively renders illegal all forms of activity supporting or promoting LGBTIQ rights.[7] Federal legislation prohibits a marriage contract or civil union entered into between persons of the same sex and provides penalties for the solemnisation and witnessing of same thereof.[8] A person who enters into a same sex marriage or union is liable on conviction to a term of 14 years imprisonment. Furthermore, a person who witnesses or is involved in any form of organization, club, society, or meetings surrounding same sex relationships is liable on conviction to a term of 10 years of imprisonment.
[21] The objective evidence addresses the social stigma surrounding same sex relationships in Nigeria. Sources indicate that any sexual orientation that is not heterosexual is considered to be unnatural, demonic, and immoral in Nigeria.[9] Sources indicate that many LGBT individuals enter heterosexual relationships to “cover” for same-sex relationships. Bisexual individuals may marry members of the opposite sex due to societal pressures to marry and have children as well, and due to homophobic persecution, stigma, and in order to avoid suspicion of having a non-heterosexual orientation.[10]
[22] In summary, the objective country condition evidence supports a conclusion that there is a clear objective basis for the claimant’ s fear of persecution on account of her sexual orientation as a lesbian. Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution.
STATE PROTECTION
[23] States are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens, except in situations where the country is in a state of complete breakdown. The responsibility to provide international (or surrogate) protection only becomes engaged when national or state protection is unavailable to the claimant. To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide “clear and convincing” evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens. A claimant is required to approach the state for protection if protection might reasonably be forthcoming. However, a claimant is not required to risk their life seeking ineffective protection of a state, merely to demonstrate that ineffectiveness.[11]
[24] In this case, the claimant fears persecution at the hands of Nigerian authorities and the Nigerian community because of the fact that individuals involved in same-sex relationship are criminalized and ostracized in Nigeria. As the state is the agent of persecution, the panel finds that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek the protection of the state in light of the claimant’s particular circumstances.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE
[25] The panel has considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant in Nigeria. On the evidence before the panel, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Nigeria. The Federal laws of Nigeria enforce the criminalization of same sex relationships, and are applicable throughout the country. Therefore, the test fails on the first prong, and a viable internal flight alternative does not exist for the claimant in Nigeria.
DECISION
[26] For these reasons, the panel finds that the claimant faces a risk of persecution if she returns to Nigeria. Accordingly, the panel finds [XXX] to be a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and refugee protection act. Therefore, the claim is accepted.
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96, 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b).
[2] Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update.
[3] Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, May 1, 2017
[4] Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the Referring CBSA / IRCC
[5] (Maldonado [1980] 2.F.C. 302 (C.A.))
[6] Exhibit 4
[7] National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 29 November 2019, tab 6.1: Treatment of sexual minorities, including legislation, state protection, and support services; the safety of sexual minorities living in Lagos and Abuja (February 2012-October 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 13 November 2015. NGA105321.E.
[8] National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 29 November 2019, tab 6.4: Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act, 2013. Nigeria. 2013.
[9] National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 29 November 2019, tab 6.7: Information on how bisexuality is understood and perceived in Nigeria; whether bisexuality is distinguished from both male and female homosexuality (2014-June 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 9 September 2015. NGA105219.E.
[10] National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 29 November 2019, tab 6. 7: Information on how bisexuality is understood and perceived in Nigeria; whether bisexuality is distinguished from both male and female homosexuality (2014-June 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 9 September 2015. NGA105219.E.
[11] (Ward [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689)