Docket: IMM-1312-21
Citation: 2022 FC 151
St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, February 7, 2022
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
| BETWEEN:
|
| OLUWATOYIN GBEMISOLA OLASUPO
AMEERAH OLAMIDE OLASUPO
ABDRAHMAN OLABODE OLASUPO
|
| Applicants
|
| and
|
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION CANADA
|
| Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] Ms. Oluwatoyin Gbemisola Olasupo (the “Principal Applicant”
) and her children Ameerah Olamide Olasupo and Abdrahman Olabode Olasupo (collectively “the Applicants”
) seek judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD”
), dismissing their appeal from a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”
) for protection.
[2] The Applicants are citizens of Nigeria. They base their claim for protection upon fear of persecution resulting from the political activities of the Principal Applicant’s husband. He has fled Nigeria.
[3] The RPD found that an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”
) is available to the Applicants in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
[4] The test for a viable IFA is addressed in Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1991), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (Fed. C.A.), at 710-711. The test is two pronged and provides 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.
[5] In order to show that an IFA is unreasonable, an applicant must show that conditions in the proposed IFA would jeopardize life and safety in travelling or relocating to that IFA; see Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1993), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (Fed. C.A.), at 596-598.
[6] The decision of the RAD is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov (2019), 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.).
[7] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on that decision”
; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.
[8] On the basis of the materials contained in the Certified Tribunal Record, I am satisfied that the RAD reasonably concluded that an IFA is available to the Applicants.
[9] The reasons of the RAD show that it considered the evidence before it and considered the circumstances of the Applicants. The RAD applied the relevant legal test. I am not persuaded that the Applicants have shown any error that requires judicial intervention and the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[10] There is no question for certification proposed.
Email this Content