OLUWATOYIN GBEMISOLA OLASUPO AMEERAH OLAMIDE OLASUPO ABDRAHMAN OLABODE OLASUPO Applicants v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2022 FC 151

Date: 20220207 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 OLASUPOApplicantsandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADARespondent REASONS AND JUDGMENT [1] Ms.

Oluwatoyin Gbemisola Olasupo (the "“Principal Applicant”") and her children Ameerah Olamide Olasupo and AbdrahmanOlabode Olasupo (collectively "“the Applicants”") seek judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, RefugeeAppeal Division (the "“RAD”"), dismissing their appeal from a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee ProtectionDivision (the "“RPD”") for protection. [2] The Applicants are citizens of Nigeria. They base their claim for protection upon fear of persecution resulting from the politicalactivities 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), (FCA), [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 seekingprotection 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 andsafety in travelling or relocating to that IFA; see Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1993), (FCA), [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 andImmigration) v.

Vavilov (2019), 2019 SCC 65 , 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 thatdecision”"; 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 anIFA 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 RADapplied the relevant legal test. I am not persuaded that the Applicants have shown any error that requires judicial intervention and theapplication for judicial review will be dismissed. [10] There is no question for certification proposed. JUDGMENT in IMM-1312-21 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed, there is no question for certification proposed. “E. Heneghan” Judge

FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1312-21 STYLE OF CAUSE: OLUWATOYIN GBEMISOLA OLASUPO, AMEERAH OLAMIDE OLASUPO, ABDRAHMAN OLABODE OLASUPO v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN TORONTO, ONTARIO AND ST. JOHN’S, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 3, 2022 REASONS AND JUDGMENT: HENEGHAN J. DATED: FEBRUARY 7, 2022 APPEARANCES : Tina Hlimi FOR THE APPLICANTS Sally Thomas FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Tina Hlimi Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT