Date: 20110725
Docket: IMM-6609-10
Citation: 2011 FC 928
Ottawa, Ontario, July 25, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington
BETWEEN:
|
|
SANDRA SIKIRATU IYILE
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Ms. Sikiratu
Iyile is a Nigerian citizen. Her claim for refugee status was denied on the
grounds that there was a viable internal flight alternative, the city of Lagos, where she had in fact lived for many
years. This is the judicial review of that decision.
[2]
According
to Ms. Sikiratu Iyile, she was given in forced marriage to a much older man who
subsequently died. Apparently she and his other wives were to be inherited by her
late husband’s older brother, who not only intended to marry her but also to
have her subjected to female circumcision. Her own family would not help her.
[3]
She moved
to Benin City where she stayed for two
years with an “auntie”. However, once her family tracked her down, the auntie
said she could keep her no longer.
[4]
Lacking an
education, she went to Lagos and became a street person.
Although she was able to live with a friend from time to time, for the most
part she lived under a bridge, begged, and finally turned to prostitution.
There was a silver lining in this because a customer, a “sugar daddy”, took
pity on her and financed her trip to Canada.
As implausible as this may seem, no adverse credibility finding was made
against her.
[5]
During the
approximately five years she was in Lagos,
neither her late husband’s brother nor her family found her.
[6]
It is a
fundamental principle of refugee law that one cannot seek international
protection if there is a viable alternative in another part of one’s own country.
Indeed, the concept of a viable IFA is inherent in the process, with the burden
resting on the applicant (Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment and
Immigration) (1991), [1992] 1 FC 706 (FCA) and Thirunavukkarasu v Canada
(Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), [1994] 1 FC 589 (FCA)).
[7]
There is
no evidence whatsoever that those who she thinks would do her harm, namely her
late husband’s family and her own family, would have the will and the capacity
to track her down in Lagos. This is borne out by her previous experience in
that city.
[8]
Ms. Sikiratu
Iyile submits that it would be inhumane to send her back to Lagos, to return her to a life of begging and prostitution,
particularly since she now has a Canadian-born daughter. However, that is a
situation in which any young uneducated female might find herself in the big
city. It does not give rise to a refugee claim or a claim for international
protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act. Furthermore, as the tribunal member pointed out, she
professed that she had no knowledge of help available in Lagos from non-government organizations. She
now does. These organizations can help to find her shelter and employment. She
need not return to the streets.
[9]
The tribunal’s
conclusion that an IFA was a realistic option for Ms. Sikiratu Iyile in her
particular circumstances and would not likely jeopardise her life and safety
was not unreasonable and should not be set aside by this Court.
ORDER
FOR REASONS GIVEN;
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1.
This
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
There is
no serious question of general importance to certify.
“Sean Harrington”
Email this Content