2022 FC, 2022 FC 1052

Date: 20220718 Docket: IMM-557-21 Citation: 2022 FC 1052 Ottawa, Ontario, July 18, 2022 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:OLUGBENGA FABUNMI IDOWUApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent REASONS AND JUDGMENT [1] Mr. Olugbenga Fabunmi Idowu (the "“Applicant”") seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board,Refugee Appeal Division (the "“RAD”"), dismissing his claim for protection as a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection,pursuant to

section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "“Act”"). [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria. He based his claim for protection upon his status as a bisexual man.

The RAD determined thatan Internal Flight Alternative ("“IFA”") is available to him in Port Harcourt. [3] Although the Applicant advanced several arguments, the dispositive issue in this application is the RAD’s treatment of the IFA. [4] The decision of the RAD is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, following the decision in the Supreme Court of Canada inCanada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.

Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 , [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653. [5] 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 bearon that decision”"; see Vavilov, at paragraph 99. [6] 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. [7] 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. [8] The Applicant argues that the RAD erred by relying on an outdated version of the National Documentation Package ("“NDP”"),when there was a more current version available. The Applicant submits that the updated NDP includes new information that is relevantto his circumstances. [9] I agree. [10] In my opinion, the RAD was unreasonable in relying on an outdated NDP when updated information was readily available. [11] In the result, the application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision will be set aside and the matter remitted to a new panelof the RAD for redetermination.

JUDGMENT in IMM-557-21 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter remitted toa new panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division for redetermination. "E. Heneghan" Judge FEDERAL COURT

FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-557-21 STYLE OF CAUSE: OLUGBENGA FABUNMI IDOWU v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN TORONTO, ONTARIO AND ST. JOHN’S, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 14, 2022 REASONS AND JUDGMENT: HENEGHAN J. DATED: JULY 18, 2022 APPEARANCES : Alison Pridham FOR THE APPLICANT Nicole Rahaman FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Lewis & Associates Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT