Citation: 2020 RLLR 155
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 23, 2020
Panel: Sudabeh Mashkuri
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Johnson Babalola
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: TB8-02740
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-02782
ATIP Number: A-2022-00210
ATIP Pages: 000109-000113
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case. I’m going to render my decision orally right now. When you do get the transcript of these reasons they will not be edited for spelling, syntax, and grammar, but I want to reassure you that I have considered and taken into my findings all the applicable case law, the documentary evidence, and all the other references that were before me.
[2] The claimants XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and minor claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX, you claim … the principal claimant claims to be a citizen of Nigeria and the minor claimant is a citizen of the United States, and they are both claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[3] I have appointed you as the designated representative to the minor claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX, and your claims have been joined under Rule 50 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regulations.
[4] This is going to be a split decision. In deciding your claims I have considered the guidelines on women refugee claimants fearing gender related persecution and this is my determination.
[5] I am first going to deal with the minor claimant. After considering all the evidence before me I find that the minor claimant, although she has … she has established that she is a US citizen, I find that she’s neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. No evidence was put forward on behalf of the minor claimant with regards to persecution in United States.
[6] I do find that identity of the minor claimant has been established based on the principal claimant’s testimony. The minor claimant has a US passport, as well as a birth certificate. She also has a Nigerian passport based on her parent’s citizenship. However, I do find that since she’s also a citizen of United States and no claim was advanced with regard to the claimant against the US, I … that … that would suggest that as a citizen of the US she would not be able to obtain State protection in the US.
[7] I do find that her claim has failed, that she’s neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, and therefore her claim is denied. However, this is my second determination.
[8] I find that the principal claimant is a Convention refugee based on her membership in a particular social group. I do find that there’s an intersection between two grounds. One is a membership in a particular social group as a family member of … of a child who is XXXX, and I also find that there is an intersection of the principal claimant’s immutable being as … as a woman and therefore I find that there is a gender aspect. She is a mother and a woman who’s deemed to be responsible, either as a XXXX, which is based on her gender, for her child having … having been XXXX with XXXX.
[9] As far as the analysis of this case is concerned, as I stated previously, as far as identity’s concerned I find that the principal claimant has established that she is a citizen of Nigeria based on her testimony and her passport, and the minor claimant is a citizen of Nigeria as well as United States.
[10] Credibility is an issue in every claim. I found that the claimant was … the principal claimant was credible witness with regards to what she has alleged in support of her claim with regards to her daughter.
[11] And I want to just go a little bit with regards to the allegations of this claim. The allegations were set out in three Basis of Claim Forms about the fear of the claimant on being persecuted by her in-laws because of her mother-in-law dying in 2016, in XXXX 2016. However, I have taken into consideration that her fear materialized at that point for being perceived as a XXXX, responsible for the death of her mother-in-law, but however, that was almost four and a half years ago. A lot has happened since then.
[12] And I’ve looked at the documentary evidence provided and I find that this is basically a sur place claim in that the claimant’s daughter, although assessed in the United States in 2017 with developmental delay, was not diagnosed with XXXXandXXXX XXXX until 2019, when the claimants were in Canada.
[13] I’ve looked at … I have found the claimant’s oral testimony with regards to how she would be treated if she is to return presently to Nigeria to be credible, as well as the objective documentary evidence concerning the perception of the persecutors for a woman, a mother of an XXXX child. The minor claimant is only XXXX years old and she would be returning to Nigeria with her mother, although she’s American citizen.
[14] I have looked at the past behaviour of the claimant’s in-laws as agents of persecution with regards to what they believed, what they call ju-ju or cultural milieu of a woman blamed for misfortunes falling on a family, and I do find that, on a balance of probability, she would be persecuted based on the recent diagnosis of XXXX for the minor claimant in Canada.
[15] As I stated, as far as credibility is concerned, I find that the fear for the claimant basically materialized once she was in Canada with regards to the diagnosis of XXXX for her child.
[16] The claimant fears her in-laws, society, community, and the discrimination that she fears in … my finding will cumulate to persecution. Taking into account the objective documentary evidence of those who are … who have XXXX or parents of XXXX children are treated in Nigeria.
[17] I have vast amount of documentary evidence. The fear is forward-looking and therefore I do find that there’s a reasonable chance of persecution of the principal claimant as a mother of an XXXX child if she’s to return to Nigeria presently.
[18] I just wanted to put into the record some of the objective documentary evidence that was provided to me in Exhibit Number 8, for example, with regards to exorcisms as a common treatment for those who have XXXX. Mothers are blamed for their children’s XXXX in Nigeria.
[19] Persons with XXXX and disabilities are perceived as possessed and evil. And although minor claimant is an American citizen and not at risk if her mother is deemed to be the person who’s responsible for XXXX XXXX the principal claimant also would be at risk.
[20] XXXX is deemed, as I stated, seems to be connected to witchcraft and diabolic activities. There’s a … there is a fear of social stigma also for the principal claimant and her daughter. The extended family whose in Nigeria also would be part of the agents of persecution.
[21] As stated in the documentary evidence, in Nigeria there is a lot of mysticism around disabilities and people who don’t often know what to attribute to the disability of a child and the Nigerian culture.
[22] I … I have some documentary evidence with regards to the Yoruba culture. Blames diseases and disabilities, like XXXX XXXX often to mothers and on witchcraft and spirits and hereditary causes or just bad parenting, as stated in the basis of … objective documentary evidence.
[23] There’s also a lack of community and family support and social support, and as I stated, shame and stigma with regards to those who are deemed to be parents of XXXX children.
[24] I do have documentary evidence that those who are deemed to be possessed are sometimes killed, tied up, and generally mistreated very badly in Nigeria.
[25] As far as State protection is concerned, there’s ample documentary evidence with regards to the police corruption in Nigeria.
[26] Recently in the news there has been reports of protest against SARS which is a special Nigerian police force department. There’s also ample documentary evidence with regards to lack of protection for those who are fleeing anything to do with family problems.
[27] Furthermore, the claimant’s in-laws are well-known politicians. They are well connected with the police, and there are … therefore I find that there’s inadequate State protection available to the claimants, specifically in this particular case to the principal claimant for someone who’s deemed to be a XXXX or responsible for her daughter’s XXXX.
[28] As far as internal flight alternative is concerned, I’ve taken into consideration the two-prong test given tome by the Federal Court of Appeal. I have also taken into account the gender guidelines. I find that the first prong that the reach and means and the influence of the extended in-law’s family is very wide.
[29] They do have the motivation. They seem to be steeped in cultural background of belief of mysticism.
[30] And I do find that the documentary evidence provided with regards to the agent of persecution, there were some media reports with regards to the principal claimant’s in-laws being very influential and holding high office in Nigeria. And as I stated, the State protection is extremely inadequate presently in … in Nigeria.
[31] There’s also the issue of whether it’s reasonable during pandemic for the claimants to go and live in a different place, the second prong of the IFA. I’ve taken into consideration again particular circumstances of the principal claimant of being a mother of an XXXX child. There is a lack of programs for the minor claimant.
[32] Again, I do note it is a fictional, legal fictional programs for the minor claimants. Again, I do note it is a fictional, legal fictional premises that we have the minor claimant would not be going back with her mother. She’s XXXX years old. Obviously, she would not be going back to the United States. She would going with her mother.
[33] And an XXXX child with absolutely no programs available to her in Port Harcourt, as well as the principal claimant who has been getting XXXXand XXXX assistance in Canada. I do not find that there would be any … anything like that available to her in Port Harcourt. She would living as a single mother since her husband would continue to live in Lagos, so that her in-laws would not be able to find her.
[34] There’s stigma. There’s a lack of opportunities for employment for single mothers, and presently since the fear is forward-looking, I find that there’s no viable or reasonable internal flight alternative available to the principal claimant.
[35] Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, I find that the principal claimant is a Convention refugee and I reject the minor claimant’s claim with regards to United States. Thank you.
COUNSEL: Thank you so much, Madam Member. Well, appreciated. Thank you.
MEMBER: Thank you.
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-