2018 FC, 2018 FC 1093

Date: 20181030 Docket: IMM-5488-17 Citation: 2018 FC 1093 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, October 30, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:TRACY ISOKEN IYAMUApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Ms. Tracy Isoken Iyamu (the "“Applicant”") seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, RefugeeAppeal Division (the "“RAD”") whereby her claim for protection was dismissed. [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria.

She sought protection on the basis of her membership in a particular social group, that iswomen fearing domestic violence. [3] The Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the "“RPD”") dismissed the Applicant’s claim on the groundsthat an Internal Flight Alternative ("“IFA”") was available to her. Upon appeal, the RAD confirmed the findings of the RPD andconcluded that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to

section 96 and subsection97(1), respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "“Act”"). [4] The Applicant’s main argument is that the RAD ignored her evidence about the period of time that she spent in hiding in the areathat the RAD found to constitute an IFA. [5] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the "“Respondent”") submits that the RAD did not err in finding the existence of anIFA and reasonably considered the evidence before it, including the Applicant’s education and demonstrated resourcefulness in life. [6] A finding as to the availability of an IFA is subject to review on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Verma v.

Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 404 at paragraph 14. [7] According to the decision in Dunsmuir v.

New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the standard ofreasonableness requires that a decision be transparent, justifiable and intelligible, falling within a range of possible, acceptable outcomesthat is defensible on the law and the facts. [8] Upon reviewing the evidence in the Certified Tribunal Record and considering the submissions of the parties, I am not persuadedthat the RAD’s decision is unreasonable. [9] The decision of the RAD shows an appreciation of the evidence and there is no basis for judicial intervention. [10] In the result, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

There is no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT in IMM-5488-17 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising. “E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-5488-17

STYLE OF CAUSE: TRACY ISOKEN IYAMU v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 16, 2018 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: HENEGHAN J. DATED: October 30, 2018 APPEARANCES : Kingsley Jesuorobo For The APPLICANT Maria Burgos For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Barrister and Solicitor North York, Ontario For The APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The RESPONDENT