Citation: 2020 RLLR 64
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 26, 2020
Panel: Angelina Guarino
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Eric Freedman
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: MB8-01156
Associated RPD Number(s): MB8-01171, MB8-01221
ATIP Number: A-2021-00800
ATIP Pages: 000030-000037
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The principal claimant, [XXX], his wife, [XXX] (the female claimant), and their minor child, [XXX] (the minor claimant), are citizens of Nigeria. They are claiming refugee protection in Canada under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
[2] The panel appointed the principal claimant as the designated representative of his minor child, [XXX].
[3] The wife and minor child are basing their refugee protection claims on the principal claimant’s written account in the Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form).[1]
ALLEGATIONS
[4] The principal claimant alleges that he fears his deceased father’s third wife, named [XXX], as well as his police officer half-brother, named [XXX], born from that relationship, who threatened to kill the male claimant and go after his family after he refused to give them the major share of the inheritance from his father.
[5] According to the will, the inheritance was to be divided equally between all the children of the male claimant’s father, and [XXX] request was very poorly received by the other heirs. Following their refusal, [XXX] threatened to kill the claimant and his brothers and sisters.
[6] The male claimant also alleges that two of his brothers were killed after receiving death threats from [XXX]. According to the male claimant, it was [XXX] who ensured that her threats were carried out. She was questioned by the police after the death of the male claimant’s brothers because people had witnessed her uttering threats. However, the investigation quickly ended as her son [XXX], a [XXX], intervened to have her released. The male claimant alleges that [XXX] has many influential contacts among the Nigerian authorities and that he is involved in shady dealings.
[7] Consequently, the male claimant fears that he will be the next victim of violence at the hands of [XXX] and her son owing to this conflict, especially since the issue of the inheritance has not yet been resolved and the other heirs do not want to agree to an unequal split.
DETERMINATION
[8] The panel concludes that the refugee protection claimants are “persons in need of protection” for the reasons set out below.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[9] The panel is satisfied as to the refugee protection claimants’ identity, which was established, on a balance of probabilities, by means of the testimony of the adult claimants and by the submission on the record of the certified true copy of their respective Nigerian passports.[2]
Analysis under paragraph 97(1)(b)
[10] In his BOC Form and during the hearing, the principal claimant stated that he feared being mistreated or even killed because of the conflict with his father’s wife and with his half-brother [XXX], a conflict involving the estate of his deceased father. He also feared that his agents of harm could go after members of his nuclear family, as the threats targeted them as well. Refugee protection claims involving a physical risk from family members in Nigeria because of an inheritance fall under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA since there is no nexus to the Convention.[3]
[11] It is also clear that, in relation to the claimants’ fears toward Nigeria, this refugee protection claim does not involve any danger of the claimants’ being subjected to a danger of torture within the meaning of paragraph 97(1)(a) of the IRPA.
[12] The panel has therefore analyzed this refugee protection claim under paragraph 97(1)(b) of the IRPA, that is, whether the claimants would be personally subjected to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they were to return to Nigeria.
Credibility
[13] The male claimant gave frank and sincere testimony before the panel about the conflict between [XXX] his half-brother [XXX], and himself, regarding the inheritance left by his deceased father.
[14] First, the male claimant provided detailed information about the way the inheritance was split between his father’s three wives. Subsequently, he explained the reasons that led [XXX] to insist on an unequal split–according to her, she was his father’s favourite wife–and stated that she had demonstrated her desire to appropriate the largest share of the inheritance by not hesitating to threaten the other heirs. The male claimant provided details on relationship dynamics within his family and the difficulty he had getting along with his half-brothers on his father’s side.
[15] The male claimant explained how the threats had escalated over time, with the murder of his two brothers. The male claimant also described the various means he had used to try to resolve the conflict. He testified that he had asked the police to intervene following the murder of his brothers, but said that the investigation had been sabotaged by the intervention of his half-brother, the [XXX]. The male claimant also asked the other heirs to agree to [XXX] demands in order to end the conflict, but they refused. The male claimant indicated that he had finally left the inheritance under the management of a company. This implies not only that it became more difficult for [XXX] and the claimant’s half-brother to appropriate the inheritance, but also that their desire for revenge grew.
[16] The male claimant testified that, on [XXX] 2017, he moved with his wife and child to the home of an uncle in Ogun State, as he felt that his life was in danger in Lagos. Nevertheless, he was found by men sent by [XXX] and his half-brother [XXX]. On [XXX] 2017, the claimants were informed by neighbours that some men had been asking about them, and it was because of this suspicious visit that the claimants decided to leave Nigeria for good.
[17] The principal claimant spontaneously answered every question he was asked. His answers were consistent not only with his written account but also with the various affidavits submitted in support of his claim.[4]
[18] In addition to his credible testimony, the principal claimant provided several pieces of evidence to corroborate his allegations. He submitted into evidence his father’s will,[5] his brothers’ death certificates[6] and posters announcing their funerals,[7] the contract stipulating that the inheritance is being managed by a management company,[8] as well as evidence that his half-brother [XXX] is a [XXX].[9] The male claimant’s attempts to obtain protection from the Nigerian authorities following the murder of his brothers are corroborated by a police report.[10]
[19] The panel notes that the claimants arrived in the United States on [XXX] 2017. They finally left that country on [XXX] 2018. The principal claimant specified that he did not claim asylum because of the hostile climate toward asylum seekers in the United States. The panel considers this an unreasonable explanation for the failure to claim asylum. Nevertheless, as the claimants had valid status and given the duration of their stay, which lasted a few months, the panel is of the opinion that this behaviour is not determinative to undermine the credibility of the alleged facts taken as a whole.
Objective basis of the fear
[20] The objective documentation on Nigeria reports that violence related to inheritance issues is common. Indeed, in a European Union report, the Director of the Initiative for Equal Rights in Nigeria states that this is a major problem in Nigeria and that quarrels can happen between several family members; the violence that follows can go as far as killing.[11]
State protection
[21] Objective documentation indicates that the Nigeria Police Force is perceived as corrupt and ineffective.[12] The reports also highlight problems in the judicial system, which is reported to be short-staffed, underfunded, ineffective, subject to political intervention, corrupt, and lacking training and resources.[13]
[22] The panel also notes that the male claimant testified that he reported some of the incidents to the police. He submitted a police report[14] into evidence and testified about the time he went to file a complaint. He explained that the police officers questioned [XXX] but that they quickly released her. The male claimant thinks that [XXX] son, [XXX], himself a [XXX], may have bribed the police. The male claimant explained that he knew about his half-brother’s illegal trafficking in cars. The half-brother told the male claimant about his activities and influence within the police when he threatened him.
[23] For all these reasons, the panel is of the opinion that the male claimant has established, through clear and convincing evidence, that he would not have access to adequate state protection.
Internal flight alternative
[24] The panel considered the Jurisprudential Guide dealing with the various internal flight alternatives in major cities in southern and central Nigeria for claimants fleeing non-state actors.[15] Having considered the profile of the male claimant’s agents of harm, the analysis in the Guide is not applicable in this case.
[25] The panel questioned the male claimant about the possibility of relocating to Port Harcourt in order to escape [XXX] and his half-brother [XXX]. Asked to explain why [XXX] and his half-brother would want to find him in the proposed IFA, the male claimant stated that they are motivated by their desire for revenge as well as by the fact that the male claimant is the last male heir standing in the way of management of the inheritance passing into the hands of his half-brother [XXX]. Asked about the ability of [XXX] and his half-brother to find him in Port Harcourt, the male claimant answered that, regardless of where he went in Nigeria, his agents of harm would be able to find him because of his half-brother’s duties as a [XXX] and his access to personal information banks. The male claimant’s agents of harm found him when he moved to his uncle’s home with his family, which demonstrates a strong and sustained interest in him. The principal claimant added that his agents of harm are capable of committing very violent acts, as they have demonstrated with the murder of his brothers.
[26] The panel takes note of the male claimant’s testimony regarding the means at the disposal of his agents of harm. The panel has also taken into account their potential interest in finding the claimant with a view to eliminating him from the line of inheritance and taking revenge on him for standing in the way of their demands as well as for having filed a complaint with the police against [XXX] regarding the murder of his brothers.
[27] Consequently, the panel is of the opinion that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimants face a risk to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment throughout Nigeria.
[28] In light of the above and taking all the evidence into account, the panel is of the opinion that the claimants have established that, should they return to Nigeria, they would be personally subjected to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.
CONCLUSION
[29] For all these reasons, the panel concludes that the refugee protection claimants are “persons in need of protection” and allows their refugee protection claim under paragraph 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.
[1] Document 1 — Basis of Claim Form.
[2] Document 1 — Information package provided by the Canada Border Services Agency and/or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, formerly Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
[3] Njeru v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C., No. IMM-2258-09), Russell, December 16, 2009, 2009 FC 1281; Kang, Hardip Kaur v. MC.I. (F.C., No. IMM-775-05), Martineau, August 18, 2005, 2005 FC 1128.
[4] Document 4 — P-20 to P-23.
[5] Document 4 — P-13.
[6] Document 4 — P-15 and P-18.
[7] Document 4 — P-14.
[8] Document 4 — P-23.
[9] Document 5 — P-24: Nigerian [XXX] ID card for [XXX].
[10] Document 4 — P-16 and P-17.
[11] Document 3 — National Documentation Package on Nigeria, November 29, 2019; Tab 1.3: European Union, European Asylum Support Office, August 2017, EASO COI Meeting Report: Nigeria.
[12] Document 3, Tab 1.4: European Union, European Asylum Support Office, June 2017, EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Nigeria. Country Focus.
Document 3, Tab 16.2: United Kingdom, Home Office, 2016, Country Information and Guidance. Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0.
[13] Document 3, Tab 1.4: European Union, European Asylum Support Office, June 2017, EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Nigeria. Country Focus, p. 29.
[14] Supra footnote 10.
[15] Jurisprudential Guide, decision TB7-19851, May 17, 2018.