Date: 20120523
Docket: IMM-7841-11
Citation: 2012 FC 629
Toronto, Ontario, May 23,
2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
|
|
ASHABI REBECCA FATOYINBO
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
Ms.
Ashabi Rebecca Fatoyinbo (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the
decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division
(the “Board”) on October 7, 2011. In that decision, the Board determined the
Applicant is neither a convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (the “Act”).
[2]
The
Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria. She sought protection
in Canada on the basis
that she was being persecuted by her son-in-law who had accused her of being a
witch. She also claimed a fear that the community may persecute her on the
grounds that she had been accused of being a witch.
[3]
The
Board found that the Applicant’s claim against her son-in-law was more properly
characterized as a vendetta than a basis of persecution giving rise to
protection under the Act. It found that an internal flight alternative (“IFA”)
existed for the Applicant in the city of Lagos and
dismissed her claim.
[4]
The
determination of a viable IFA is a question of mixed law and fact, reviewable
on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Agudelo v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 465 at para 17 and Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339.
[5]
The
test for a viable IFA was set out in Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 FC 706 (FCA) at 710-711. It is a
two-pronged test, as follows: first, the Board must be satisfied that there is
no serious possibility of a claimant being persecuted in the IFA and second, it
must be objectively reasonable to expect a claimant to seek safety in a
different part of the country before seeking protection in Canada.
[6]
In
order to show that an IFA is unreasonable, the Applicant must provide evidence
to show that conditions in the proposed IFA would jeopardize her life and
safety in travelling or relocating to that IFA; see Thirunavukkarasu v
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 FC 589 (FCA) at
596-598.
[7]
The
Applicant argues that the Board’s decision with respect to the IFA was
unreasonable because it failed to take into account that while she had stayed
in the city of Lagos for some three months in 2010, she was in
hiding at that time. The Applicant argues that a place where she must stay in
hiding is not a viable IFA. Further, she submits that the Board erred in
failing to take into account the Immigration and Refugee Board Chairperson’s Guideline
4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, in
determining that Lagos was a viable IFA.
[8]
Although
there is case law that supports the view that an IFA is not viable if a person
has to remain in hiding, for example the decision in Fosu v Canada
(Minister of Employment and Immigration) (2008), 335 FTR 223 at para 15,
each case will turn on its own facts. In the present case, the Board considered
that the Applicant had been living in the town of Minna, Niger state. This
town is approximately a day’s journey from Lagos, according
to the evidence of the Applicant. The Board observed that there was no evidence
that her son-in-law, that is the alleged agent of persecution, had any business
in Lagos or that he
had pursued her there once she left Minna. The Board did not suggest that the
Applicant should give up all indicia of normal life but it found that the risk
of contact with her persecutor, in Lagos, was remote and did not
rise to the level of a serious possibility.
[9]
In
these circumstances, I am satisfied that the Board properly considered and
applied the test for an IFA and reasonably concluded that Lagos provided a
viable IFA to the Applicant.
[10]
The
Applicant also argued that the Board’s finding as to an IFA was unreasonable
because it failed to take into account the psychological report which suggested
that the Applicant could not relocate anywhere in Nigeria because she was
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). In short, the Applicant
submits that the Board misunderstood the “essence” of that report.
[11]
I
do not find this argument persuasive, since it appears to be a matter of
disagreement, by the Applicant, with the manner in which the Board dealt with
the report.
[12]
Accordingly,
this application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for
certification arising.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that the application for
judicial review is dismissed, no question for certification arising.
“E. Heneghan”
Email this Content