Date: 20 November 2019
Court: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Refugee Appeal Decision
Citation: [2019] RADD No 2229
Summary by: Madison Bruno
Short summary
The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected a claim for refugee protection because it found an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA), Port Harcourt, within Nigeria. The Appellant claimed that the RPD erred in its IFA test because the alternate location was unsafe and unreasonable. The Refugee Appeal Board dismissed the appeal but accepted evidence regarding effects of climate change in Nigeria.
Click here to open the case in PDF format
Weight of decision
The federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) gives the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada jurisdiction to hear and decide cases on immigration/refugee matters. Their decisions are persuasive but not binding precedent and are subject to judicial review at the Federal Court.
Key facts
Appellant alleged he was attacked by Fulani Herdsmen in 2016, following several altercations over their cattle drinking from his fishponds. He claimed that he was hospitalized for 14 months. Appellant fled Nigeria in 2018, travelled through the U.S., then arrived in Canada to seek refugee protection.
Canada’s Refugee Protection Division rejected appellant’s initial application for asylum, prompting an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Board.
Summary of holding
The Refugee Appeal Board utilized a two-part legal test for assessing whether appellant had a reasonable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA):
“First, the Board must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted, and/or no danger of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFA.” (¶ 51)
“Second, conditions in that part of the country must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, for the claimant to seek refuge there.” (¶ 52)
“Once an IFA has been identified, the Appellant is responsible for demonstrating that the IFA is unsafe or unreasonable.” (¶ 53)
The Appeal Board then gave a summary of the documentary evidence regarding Fulani Herdsmen used by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in its original decision:
“The NDP [National Documentation Package] states that climate change and insecurity in Nigeria’s northern region have triggered a southward migration of Fulani Herdsmen, resulting in conflict between local farmers and the Herdsmen as they search for land to graze their cattle. The conflicts occur primarily in Nigeria’s Middle Belt, including the states of Adamawa, Benue, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Plateau, Taraba, and the Federal Capital Territory.” (¶ 55)
Continued on the next page…