2023 RLLR 181
Citation: 2023 RLLR 181
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 6, 2023
Panel: Warren Woods
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Solomon Orjiwuru
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: TC3-39026
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01010
ATIP Pages: 000017-000025
DECISION
[1] The claimant, XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Nigeria, who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1]
FILE HISTORY
[2] This decision and reasons are a redetermination following an appeal decision by the Refugee Appeal Division made on April 4, 2023. In its decision the RAD overturned the first instance Refugee Protection Division decision made in January 2023, where the original decision refused the application based on credibility-related concerns.
[3] In its order, in allowing the appeal the RAD directed that the new RPD panel consider the claimant’s credibility and also whether the claimant has a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Abuja, Nigeria.
[4] At the hearing into this matter, which took place on October 23, 2023, counsel for the claimant sought to introduce late and voluminous, claimant-specific evidence into the proceeding. However, the documentation had not been received by the RPD registry and counsel’s application for late disclosure was denied.
[5] Following the conclusion of the hearing on October 23, 2023, counsel filed the same material – which includes an amended BOC narrative and 64 additional pages of documents, arguing that it is highly relevant. However, counsel did explain why the material was not filed within the requirements of section 34 and section 36 of the RPD Rules. Based on counsel’s failure to articulate arguments concerning Rule 36(c) the panel rejects to the admission of the material.
ALLEGATIONS
[6] The claimant’s allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form narrative.[2]
[7] The claimant identifies himself a member of the Igbo ethnic group. The claimant left Nigeria for the United States in XX 2018. Prior to his departure to the United States, the claimant was not politically active in Nigeria and did not experience any difficulty or mistreatment at the hands of Nigerian security services.
[8] In his testimony at the hearing, the claimant alleges that, while living in Texas, USA, he associated with Nigerian nationals that were politically active in the cause of the Igbo ethnic group and the Indigenous People of Biafra or IPOB organization.
[9] The clamant testified that, following his relocation from Texas to Canada in XX2019, he substantially increased his IPOB political activities, based in his new home in Montreal, Quebec.
[10] The claimant testified that he led and attended public protests against the Nigerian security forces treatment of IPOB members. The claimant also stated that he has a close friend working for the XXXX or XXXX, who advised the claimant that he will be prosecuted if he returns to Nigeria.
[11] The claimant also asserts that he maintains regular communication with his mother, who lives in Imo state and that armed XX agents have come to her home on several occasions seeking his whereabouts.
[12] The claimant also testified that his cousin is an IPOB supporter and that he was detained and tortured for a period of XXXX days in XX 2023, before being released.
[13] The claimant alleges that he would be persecuted in Nigeria today, including in the proposed IFA location of Abuja, at the hands of the XXXX.
DETERMINATION
[14] The panel finds that the claimant has met his burden of establishing he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Nigeria, within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA.
ISSUES
[15] The determinative issues in this proceeding are the credibility of the claimant’s allegations and evidence, and whether a viable IFA is available to the claimant in Abuja.
ANALYSIS
National Identity
[16] The claimant established his personal and national identity as a citizen of Nigeria, by providing copies of his genuine Nigeria passport, which he used to obtain a visa to the United States in 2018.[3]
[17] The panel finds that there is no evidence before it, that the claimant holds national rights in a country other than Nigeria.
[18] Consequently, the claim will be assessed and decided solely against Nigeria.
Credibility
[19] In assessing credibility, the panel is cognizant of the many difficulties faced by a claimant in establishing a claim, including the claimant’s age, background, cultural factors, the milieu of the hearing room, the stress inherent in responding to oral questions through an interpreter and nervousness.
[20] When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are true, unless there is valid reason to doubt their veracity.[4] The determination as to whether a claimant’s evidence is credible is made, on a balance of probabilities.
[21] There are several aspects of the claimant’s evidence that raise credibility related concerns for the panel. The claimant testified that he was never politically active while he lived in Nigeria and that he never experienced mistreatment at the hands of authorities in Nigerian. He further testified that he was never arrested or detained in Nigerian.
[22] When asked why he first became politically active with IPOB, after he left Nigeria in 2018, the claimant stated that there was a great deal of open US media coverage concerning violence being endured by the Igbo people, and that he met several IPOB members in Texas and that this was a catalyst to start his political involvement.
[23] The panel also questioned the claimant on how the DSS became to know about his IPOB activities in Canada and he learned that the DSS is actively seeking his whereabouts today. Although the claimant maintains that his cousin works for the XXXX and passed along information about being actively wanted in Nigeria today by Nigerian government agencies, the panel did not have the benefits of questioning the claimant’s cousin during the hearing or hearing from his mother that the XXXX has repeatedly visited his Imo state home searching for him. The claimant has also failed to provide any corroborative documents issued from Nigerian police and security officials that would confirm that he wanted today, due to suspected IPOB activities in Canada.
[24] While the panel has weighed and considered the adverse credibility aspects of the claimant’s evidence, these credibility concerns – own their own – cannot sustain an overall negative credibility finding by the panel.
[25] In support of his assertions that he is a IPOB political activists, the claimant provided corroborative documentary evidence[5] from individuals in Canada and in Nigeria. The panel has closely examined the Canada-based documents and had questioned the claimant about their reliability at the hearing.
[26] During answers to questions posed by the panel, the claimant was able to adequately explain the IPOB political structure, its organizational mandate, and objectives, as well as its currently leadership.
[27] The panel has also reviewed and evaluated the claimant’s corroborative documents issued from individuals based in Nigeria. One of the documents was authorized by claimant’s cousin, XXXX and is dated XX XX, 2023. Another document is provided by the XXXX XXX and is dated XX XX, 2023. The claimant has also provided a letter from a Nigerian-based lawyer.
[28] After reviewing all the evidence before it concerning the alleged events of past persecution, the panel finds the documents to be credibility.
[29] The panel has also assessed all of the evidence before it – including the claimant’s testimony at the hearing – in order to determine if there are any substantial inconsistencies or omissions that would give rise to credibility concerns. The panel finds no such evidence before it.
[30] Therefore, the panel finds as credible, the claimant’s refugee sur place evidence, that he is a Canada-based IPOB supporter, who has spoken critically about the XXXX, and that he has joined public protests in Canada, supporting IPOB objectives in Nigeria.
Agents of Harm and Motive:
[31] During his testimony the claimant was asked about the identities of the men who have sought his whereabouts in Nigeria, at the home of his mother. The claimant also testified about his cousin position and work for the the XXXX in Nigeria, and how it is that the XXXX has come to seek the whereabouts of the claimant.
[32] The claimant testified that he fears returning to Nigeria today due to the risk that national security officers would persecute him due to his ethnicity and IPOB political membership.
[33] Based on a balance of probabilities, the panel finds the claimant’s evidence to be credible.
[34] Based on all the evidence before it, the panel finds that there is a nexus between the evidence in this matter and one of the: live grounds – political opinion – contained in the Refugee Convention or section 96 of the IRPA.
State Protection
[35] The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that it would be unreasonable for the claimant to have to seek protection from the very police and security services – that are actively seeking his whereabouts in order to persecute him for a Convention reason.
[36] Therefore, the panel finds that the availability of state protection cannot be used as a basis for rejecting the claim for refugee protection in this proceeding.
Internal Flight Alterative
[37] This assessment is based on a two-prong test.
[38] First, there must be no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country identified as an IFA or that on a balance of probabilities, he would not be subjected personally to a danger of torture or a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the part of the country identified as the IFA.
[39] Secondly, the conditions in that part of the country must be such that it would not be objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for the claimant to seek refuge there.
[40] The panel has weighed and considered the documentary evidence concerning the human rights situation in Nigeria, and the size and competency of the national police service.
[41] The panel has closely reviewed and assessed current human rights reporting concerning the treatment of IPOB activist.[6]
Treatment of IPOB Members and Their Relatives by Nigerian Authorities
Based on its investigation in the states of Anambra, Imo, Ebonyi and Abia, Amnesty International reports that it had “documented” that “at least” 115 people were “killed by security forces between Marchand June 2021,” “[m]ore than 500 arrested after police and military raids,” as well as “52 incidents of unlawful killings and 62 cases of arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment and torture” (Amnesty International 5 Aug. 2021). The same source also states that “Nigeria’s government has responded with a heavy hand to killings and violence widely attributed to” ESN and that “[m]any relatives of victims” interviewed by Amnesty International said “that they were not part of the militants that were attacking security agents” (Amnesty International 5 Aug. 2021). The source further notes that out of the “at least” 400 arrests announced in Imo State, “most” had no ties to the ESN (Amnesty International 5 Aug. 2021).
According to the MASSOB Coordinator, “relatives including minor children, of low level IPOB members are arrested and detained by the Nigerian police and the Nigerian military” (MASSOB 1 Apr. 2022).
ln contrast, the journalist stated that ordinary Nigerian citizens “have nothing to fear” even if they are members or sympathizers of IPOB and that only low-level IPOB members involved in violence and criminal activities would be of interest to the Nigerian police and face arrest (Journalist 8 Apr. 2022). According to the same source, the relatives of current IPOB members, as well as former members who left the movement before it became violent “do not represent a danger” for Nigerian authorities (Journalist 8 Apr. 2022).
[42] The claimant’s own evidence indicates that police authorities in Nigeria would mistreat and detain him, should he be forced to return to the country.
[43] While some of human rights reporting in the Nigeria indicates that the police service can provide police protection, this cannot be said to be the case as it relates to IPOB activities abroad, where the evidence indicates widespread police involvement in targeting individuals.
[44] Based on the evidence before it the panel finds that a viable IFA is not available to the claimant in Nigeria at the present time.
[45] Rather, the evidence indicates that the agents of harm – members of the national security and police services – have near impunity to target the claimant in any location in Nigeria should he be forced to return to the country.
CONCLUSION
[46] On the basis of the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant has satisfied his burden that he would be persecuted today in Nigeria, based on political opinion and within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA.
[47] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA. Therefore, his claim for refugee for protection is accepted.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,S.C. 2001, c. 27
[2] Exhibit 2 – Basis of Claim form.
[3] Exhibit 1, information provided from CBSA.
[4] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A).
[5] Exhibits 4, personal corroborative documents.
[6] NDP, item 13.5, para 5