JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicant, Ayoola Oke, seeks review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissing his appeal. The RAD upheld the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) finding that Mr. Oke was not a convention refugee as he did not demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution in Nigeria. The RAD concluded that the evidence failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Applicant would be persecuted or harmed in Nigeria because of his political support for the Yoruba Nation separatist group [Yoruba Nation].

[2] Mr. Oke is a citizen of Nigeria and a permanent resident of South Africa. He claims to fear persecution in South Africa because of his Nigerian citizenship, and in Nigeria because of his political support of the Yoruba Nation.

[3] Mr. Oke and his family left South Africa for Canada in 2022 and applied for refugee protection. The RPD accepted the claims of his wife and children but rejected Mr. Oke’s claim that he would face persecution in Nigeria.

[4] On February 13, 2024, the RAD rejected his appeal.

[5] The parties agree that the applicable standard of review of the RAD decision is reasonableness. A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 86 [Vavilov]). A reviewing Court will not interfere with the factual findings of the decision maker absent exceptional circumstances and must refrain from reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker (Vavilov at para 125).

[6] The Applicant raises the following issues with the RAD decision:

1. Refusal to accept new evidence.

2. Political opinion under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].

3. Risk of persecution as a member of a social group.

4. Did the RAD consider section 97 risk of persecution?

I. Analysis

A. Refusal to accept new evidence.

[7] Mr. Oke argues that the RAD unreasonably refused to admit his text messages as new evidence under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. He argues that the rules of evidence should have been applied in a more relaxed manner because he was self-represented.

[8] Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA states:

[9] With respect to the text messages, the RAD found as follows:

[11] The text message from 2013 could have been provided to the RPD. The Appellant acknowledges that it is not new, but it did not cross his mind to provide it until now. The Federal Court has determined that the test for admissibility of new evidence leaves no room for discretion and must be interpreted narrowly, or it departs from the general principle that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) proceeds without a hearing based on the record before the RPD. [Footnotes omitted.]

[10] Despite his submission that the rules should have been relaxed, those who choose to represent themselves remain responsible for understanding and following the relevant rules and procedures. While navigating the process may be challenging for self-represented litigants, I do note that Mr. Oke did represent himself before the RPD, so he was not a complete stranger to the process.

[11] In any event, subsection 110(4) of the IRPA is to be narrowly interpreted, which means there is little discretion for the RAD to relax the rules of evidence (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Singh, 2016 FCA 96 at para 35).

[12] The RAD finding that the text messages did not meet the requirements of subsection 110(4) is reasonable.

B. Political opinion under section 96 of the IRPA.

[13] The Applicant argues that the RAD did not do a proper section 96 risk assessment when it compared his risk to the risk faced by members of other separatist organizations. This approach was taken by the RAD because of the limited documentation on the Yoruba Nation.

[14] Section 96 of the IRPA states:

[15] In considering the risk to Mr. Oke, the RAD noted that he was a low-level supporter of the Yoruba Nation, therefore he did not face a serious possibility of persecution in Nigeria. This finding was grounded on the information in the National Documentation Package (NDP) evidence. Mr. Oke argues that the RAD improperly focused on the absence of information in the NDP regarding Yoruba persecution and failed to give significant weight to the two articles he provided as new evidence.

[16] The RAD considered the evidence before them, including the Applicant’s articles. After reviewing the evidence, the RAD found that while the Applicant expressed a subjective fear of persecution, he did not provide sufficient evidence to support an objective fear of persecution. Accordingly, I do not agree with Mr. Oke’s assertion that the RAD did not consider the news articles. Rather the RAD considered and weighed the evidence made up of the news articles and the NDP evidence.

[17] Mr. Oke’s submissions amount to a disagreement with how the RAD weighed the evidence. The role of this Court is not to re-weigh the evidence, and the Applicant has not identified any errors with the RAD’s handling of evidence.

C. Risk of persecution as a member of a social group.

[18] Mr. Oke argues that the RAD failed to consider his risk based on his membership in the Yoruba minority ethnic group.

[19] The Respondent objects to the Court considering this submission because Mr. Oke did not argue “risk” on this ground before the RAD. The law is clear that the RAD is not required to provide reasons for unchallenged findings (Akintola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 971 at para 21). In other words, since Mr. Oke did not argue this as a ground before the RAD, it cannot be permitted to do so on this judicial review.

[20] I agree with the Respondent that the Applicant did not raise this issue directly. In any event, I am satisfied that the Applicant’s ethnicity was considered in keeping with his Basis of Claim narrative where his risk was related to his involvement with the Yoruba Nation and not based upon his Yoruba ethnicity.

D. Did the RAD consider section 97 risk of persecution?

[21] The Applicant argues that the RAD erred by failing to conduct a full analysis of his risks pursuant to section 97 which states:

[22] He submits that his activities with Yoruba Nation, including the possibility he may have been seen on television, could put him at risk of persecution.

[23] The challenge for Mr. Oke with this submission is that where an applicant does not establish persecution under section 96, it is not necessary for the RAD to conduct a separate section 97 analysis (Racz v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 436 at para 6).

[24] In any event, here the RAD did turn its mind to risk under section 97 when it found that country conditions evidence alone was insufficient to support a claim for risk when there is a lack of evidence of a personalized risk. Additionally, the RAD finding cannot be faulted with the Applicant’s failure to provide any evidence of risk of persecution under section 97.

[25] I find no error in the RAD’s reasoning.

II. Conclusion

[26] Overall, the RAD’s decision is reasonable. This judicial review application is dismissed and there is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-4389-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that :

1. This judicial review is dismissed.

2. There is no question for certification.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES :

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: