Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de rfugi du Canada Section de la protection des rfugis RPD File / Dossier de la SPR : XXX-XXX UCI / IUC: XXX-XXX Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision Motifs et decision Claimant(s) Michelle Ebi Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of hearing August 16, 2024 Date(s) de l'audience Place of hearing Toronto, ON Lieu de l'audience Date of decision and reasons August 18, 2024 Date de la dcision et des motifs Panel N. Azer Tribunal Counsel for the claimant(s) XX XX Conseil(s) du (de la/des) demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Designated representative N/A Reprsentant(e) dsign(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre INTRODUCTION [1] The claimant, Michelle Ebi, is a citizen of Nigeria. She claims refugee protection under ss 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "Act" or "IRPA").1 ALLEGATIONS2 [2] The claimant's allegations are fully set out in his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative. [3] The claimant is a woman from Abuja, Nigeria. She alleges a fear for her life because she faces verbal, physical and financial abuse from her husband. [4] The claimant married her husband in 2020. Beginning in 2021, her husband became abusive towards her. [5] On several occasions, the claimant received injuries from the abuse. In 2021, the claimant received a cut on her arm from a bottle that her husband threw at her. She had to receive medical treatment. The claimant also alleges that she received bruises from the assaults. [6] The claimant tried to report the abuse to the police in Nigeria. However, each time, the police only gave a warning to her husband. They did not arrest him or charge him with any offences. Her attempts to receive protection only angered her husband. [7] In October 30, 2023, she came to Canada as a visitor to attend a friend's wedding. She was supposed to return to Nigeria on November 12, 2023. However, she did not return to Nigeria. [8] The claimant has been receiving angry messages from her husband demanding that she return to Nigeria. [9] On January 30, 2024, the claimant filed a refugee claim in Canada. DETERMINATION [10] For the reasons below, the panel finds the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Act nor a person in need of protection under section 97. IDENTITY [11] The claimant's identity was established by means of her testimony and her Nigerian passport. ANALYSIS 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. 2 Exhibit 1 - Basis of Claim Narrative. [12] The determinative issue in this claim is credibility and internal flight alternative Credibility [13] I am mindful of the well-established principle that a refugee's sworn testimony is presumed to be true unless there are good reasons to doubt the truthfulness. [14] I am also guided by the Chairperson's Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board. [15] However, after carefully listening to the claimant's testimony and the documentary evidence, I do have some concerns with respect to her credibility. Victim of Domestic Violence [16] First of all, I accept that in the past she was a victim of domestic violence. I note the medical report from July 2021, which corroborates her testimony that her husband threw a beer bottle at her causing a cut on her arm. The medical report confirms that she had to receive stitches on her arm on this occasion. [17] However, what I doubt is whether there is a future risk of abuse from her husband. [18] Apart from the incident in July 2021, there were no other corroborating evidence submitted to support her allegation that abuse had been continuing up until she left Nigeria in October 2023. [19] Her actions also raises doubt about whether she was truly a victim of continuing abuse. She testified that she experienced verbal, physical and financial abuse for many years. She also testified that her husband did not allow her to work and did not let her leave the home freely without his permission. Despite this abhorrent treatment, the claimant did not attempt to leave her husband. When I put this concern to her, she explained that she did not have anywhere to go. She explained that there was no one that could help her because even her own family would not assist her. [20] I find her explanation to be not reasonable. If she was truly experiencing the abuse that she alleged in her testimony, I find that a reasonable person would try to leave that relationship earlier. In this case, it was only by chance (attending a wedding in Canada) that she left Nigeria and her husband. [21] The claimant also submitted text messages from her husband that she allegedly received after deciding not to return to Nigeria. The text messages do show that the husband is upset about the situation and wants the claimant to return to Nigeria. However, there were no messages where any direct threats of violence were made. Further, there were no messages that indicated that there may have been abuse in the relationship in the past. Therefore, these messages do not establish that she faces a future risk of abuse. [22] In conclusion, although I find that she may have experience abuse in the past, I do not find that there is enough credible evidence before me to establish that she faces a future risk of abuse if returned to Nigeria. Delay in Claiming [23] I also find it concerning that there was a significant delay in initiating a refugee claim in Canada. She came to Canada on October 30, 2023. She filed her refugee claim on January 30, 2024. [24] In testimony, she explained that the delay was because she did not know that a victim of domestic violence could make a refugee claim in Canada. She testified that in January 2024, she disclosed to a shelter worker of the abuse that she received from her husband. The worker advised her to make a refugee claim. [25] The claimant is a university-educated woman from a middle-upper class family in Nigeria. If she were truly afraid to return to Nigeria, I would have expected her to research about possible ways of staying in Canada sooner. Further, I would expect someone in her situation to share her experience with workers and support staff at shelters sooner. [26] As pointed out in James C. Hathaway. The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), at page 53, "the Convention establishes [in Article 31(1)] an obligation on refugees to 'present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.' It seems right, therefore, to inquire into the circumstances of any protracted postponement of a refugee claim as a means of evaluating the sincerity of the claimant's need for protection. ... Where there is no reasonable excuse for the delay, an inference of evasion going to credibility is often warranted." [27] Accordingly, I find that her delayed actions demonstrate that she may not have subjective fear of persecution in Nigeria. INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE [27] In the event that I am wrong about my credibility assessment, I find that there is an internal flight alternative (IFA) for the claimant in Lagos or Ibadan, Nigeria. [28] The claimant's husband resides in Abuja, Nigeria. The claimant's family and the inlaws all reside in Abuja, Nigeria. [29] When I asked the claimant why she could not be safe in Lagos or Ibadan, the claimant testified that her husband is a resourceful and influential man. She explained that he has the means to find anyone in Nigeria through his political connections. She also testified that the Christian community is well-connected in Nigeria. If she were to attend a church in Lagos or Ibadan, word will eventually reach Abuja about her whereabouts. [30] The claimant's response fails to establish how exactly the husband will be able to find her in Lagos or Ibadan. Both Lagos and Ibadan are more than 500km away from Abuja. There is no evidence before me that the husband has any influence in Lagos or Ibadan. Both Lagos and Ibadan are metropolitan cities with large populations. I find that there is very little chance that the claimant would be found in the proposed IFA locations. [31] While I understand her concerns that she may be found by the church community, she can simply avoid this risk by not attending a church in Lagos or Ibadan. [31] Therefore, I find that there is an internal flight alternative for the claimant in Nigeria. CONCLUSION [28] For the foregoing reasons, the panel determines that the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA nor a person in need of protection under paragraph 97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of the IRPA. The panel therefore rejects her claim for refugee protection.

Based on the above rejection letter from RPD, what could be response for below 3 questions:

1) whether the RAD should use a correctness standard or a reasonableness standard to review the RPD decision

2) If you are submitting new evidence, insert the Law and Arguments about why they should be admitted as new evidence

3) If you are asking for an oral hearing, briefly argue why one should be held