Citation: 2020 RLLR 91
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 23, 2020
Panel: Haig Basmajian
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Otto Ibii
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: MB8-11891
Associated RPD Number(s): MB8-11950, MB8-11951
ATIP Number: A-2021-00945
ATIP Pages: 000020-000026
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] [XXX], the principal claimant, as well as her two minor children [XXX] and [XXX] are citizens of Nigeria. They are seeking refugee status pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The principal claimant is the designated representative of her two minor children.
DETERMINATION
[2] The Panel finds that the claimants are “Convention Refugees” under subsection 96 of the IRPA for the reasons indicated below.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[3] The identity and nationality of the claimants have been established to the satisfaction of the Panel by taking into account the photocopy of their Nigerian passports contained in their respective files.[1]
ALLEGATIONS
[4] The principal claimant’s Basis of Claim form (BOC), particularly her narrative and amendments, describes the details of her fear to return to Nigeria due to the violence she could face at the hands of her husband and his family, in addition to their insistence that their daughter, the claimant [XXX] be forced to a Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) performed on her. Given some of the content of this claim, which includes sensitive matters such as domestic abuse, the Panel took into consideration the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 of the Refugee Protection Division: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.[2]
[5] The principal claimant, accompanied by her counsel, testified via videoconference during the hearing. Given some significant additions and modifications to the narrative, notably that she was the victim of domestic abuse in Nigeria the claimant was asked to explain. The claimant answered that she had provided the modifications and new evidence to her former counsel who did not file these documents to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).
[6] In addition, she has recently had considerable personal issues such as a car accident and the recent surgery and hospitalization of her son following a serious cycling accident resulting in a ruptured pancreas, he was hospitalized on [XXX] 2020, and released a few days before the hearing on [XXX] 2020. Given that several documents were not submitted to corroborate these issues as well as the fact that she had just begun the preliminary process to divorce from her agent of persecution, the panel allowed the claimant the opportunity to submit these documents after the hearing. As such, several documents were submitted as evidence and the file was under reserve as of [XXX] 2020.
[7] This additional evidence provided plausible explanations to explain some of the inconsistencies which were outlined during the hearing.
[8] Given some of the context of the claim, including the evidence submitted before the hearing as well as Exhibits C-102 to C-106, submitted post-hearing, notably attesting the serious medical issues encountered by the claimants as well as the principles of Guideline 4, despite some contradictions and details regarding some aspects of the claims, the Panel concludes that the claimant’s fears appear to be genuine, on a balance of probabilities, as such the Panel will extend the benefit of the doubt and conclude that it is possible that she has been subject to years of violent domestic abuse as described during her testimony, in addition that her daughter could be subject to a forced FGM procedure.
[9] Sadly, as the Panel can notice throughout the National Documentation Package (NDP) regarding Nigeria, staggering levels of violence towards women are unfortunately a frequent occurrence in that country. Notably page 30 of tab 2.1 of the NDP shows that “The law criminalizes rape, but it remained widespread. In March, UNICEF released a report noting that about one in four girls and one in ten boys were victims of sexual violence prior to their 18th birthday.”[3]
[10] Furthermore, page 34 from tab 1.4 of the NDP states that “Rape is common and widespread; societal stigma reduces the likelihood of victims reporting it or of perpetrators being prosecuted or punished.”[4]
[11] The Panel also took into consideration some of the other elements submitted as evidence. Notably, at pages 6 to 34 from the objective country evidence submitted by the claimants in Exhibits C-3 to C-12 regarding the ongoing practise of FGM, which demonstrates that despite some efforts, it is still unfortunately widespread across Nigeria.
State Protection
[12] Given, the above findings, the Panel must examine state protection. The leading jurisprudence, notably in Ward Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, 1993 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 689, teaches us that States are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens except in situations of a complete breakdown. In addition, the presumption that a state is capable of protecting its citizens underscores the principal that international protection comes into play only when a refugee claimant has no other recourse available. To rebut the presumption of state protection claimants must provide clear and convincing evidence of the State’s inability to protect its citizens.
[13] In the present case, the claimant tried to obtain State protection. In addition, the claimant fears the repercussions from corrupt police.
[14] In such cases, the panel is often guided by findings contained in objective evidence in order to ascertain the plausibility of the absence of state protection.
[15] The claimant did submit some objective evidence in Exhibits C-30 and C-31 detailing the current state of widespread violence and corruption. The Panel also found similar findings in the NDP, particularly related to the state protection apparatus, notably at exhibits 2.1 and 1.4, respectively:
There were several reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary, unlawful, or extrajudicial killings. The national police, army, and other security services sometimes used lethal and excessive force to disperse protesters and apprehend criminals and suspects.”[5]
Authorities did not always hold police, military, or other security force personnel accountable for the use of excessive or deadly force or for the deaths of persons in custody.”[6]
Police remained susceptible to corruption, committed human rights violations, and operated with widespread impunity in the apprehension, illegal detention, and torture of suspects.”
According to US DoS, the judiciary in Nigeria was affected by understaffing, underfunding, inefficiency, political interference, bribery, lacking equipment and training. As a result, the judiciary could not function adequately. Freedom House drew similar conclusions in its report for 2016.[7]
The Nigerian Police force has been criticized for corruption and human rights abuses by researchers and organizations over the years. In a recent study, the relationship between the police and the public in Nigeria was called perhaps the most troublesome in sub-Saharan Africa. Another source notes that the Nigerian Police Force is widely perceived by the public as the most corrupt violent institution in Nigeria.
In 2010 Human Rights Watch (HRW) concluded that the police was not only extorting money of ordinary civilians, but also that criminal suspects with money could simply bribe the police to find their own way out. HRW also reported that at least 100 000 police officers were hired as personal guards by the wealthy, at the expense of the majority.[8]
[16] By considering the evidence in its entirety, the Panel finds that on a balance of probabilities, an individual with the profile of the claimant and the specific circumstances of this case has rebutted the presumption of state protection.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)
[17] Several cities were suggested. However, by considering the profile of the principal claimant, who was abused by her husband for several years, this abuse was unfortunately not limited to her but to her son as well. In addition, her daughter fears to be forced to undergo an FGM and by taking into account the conclusion regarding state protection, finding a safe IFA is not a viable option per the Panel. Given the family link with the agent of persecution and the claimants it would be very possible that he can retrieve them and continue with his violent ways towards them. Furthermore, by considering some of the objective evidence from the NDP on page 16, from tab 1.4 as well as page 37 from tab 2.1, we see that despite its vast size and population, it is not simple or in many cases feasible to relocate, of course, depending on an individual’s profile:
“Nigeria is a large and complex country, with much internal variation, but the main divide that is brought up by Nigerians and foreign commentators alike, is the divide between the country’s south and north. This divide is based on historical, environmental, economic, cultural, linguistic, religious and political differences between these two parts.”[9]
“The country’s ethnically diverse population consisted of more than 250 groups speaking 395 different languages. Many were concentrated geographically. Three major groups– the Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba– together constituted approximately one half the population. Members of all ethnic groups practised ethnic discrimination, particularly in the private sector hiring patterns and the segregation of urban neighbourhoods. A long history of tension existed among some ethnic groups.”[10]
[18] After considering the evidence in its entirety, the Panel finds that on a balance of probabilities, an individual with the profile of the claimant and the specific circumstances of this case could not find a viable IFA in Nigeria.
CONCLUSION
[19] For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the claimants [XXX] and [XXX] are “Convention Refugees” and therefore accepts their refugee claims.
[1] Document 1 — Package of information from the referring Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): Copy of passports.
[2] Chairperson’s Guideline 4 of the Refugee Protection Division: Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. Effective date: November 13, 1996.
[3] Document 3 — National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 31 July 2020, tab 2.1: Nigeria. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019, United States, Department of State, 11 March 2020.
[4] Document 3 — NDP, Nigeria, tab 1.4: EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Nigeria, Country Focus, European Union, European Asylum Support Office, June 2017.
[5] Supra, note 3.
[6] Supra, note 4.
[7] Ibid, page 29.
[8] Ibid, page 30.
[9] Supra, note 4.
[10] Supra, note 3.