2021 FC, 2021 FC 1099

Date: 20211019 Docket: IMM-5716-20 Citation: 2021 FC 1099 Vancouver, British Columbia, October 19, 2021 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:RALIAT ABIKE OLUFEMIApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Ms. Raliat Abike Olufemi (the "“Applicant”") seeks judicial review of the decision of an Officer (the "“Officer”") who determinedthat she would not be subject to a risk of torture, persecution or face a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned toNigeria, her country of citizenship and habitual residence.

The Applicant’s Pre-Removal Risk Application ("“PRRA”") was refused. [2] The Applicant claims to be at risk from the militant Boko Haram Terrorist Group, because she witnessed the kidnapping of twofriends in Abuja, Federal Capital Territory on February 2, 2014. She fled Nigeria on May 5, 2014 and went to the United States ofAmerica.

Although she claimed asylum in that country in May 2014, she later abandoned her claim in the United States and came toCanada to claim refugee protection on August 11, 2019. [3] Following an oral hearing of her PRRA application, the Officer determined that the Applicant has an Internal Flight Alternative("“IFA”") in her country of origin. The Officer noted inconsistencies and vagueness in the Applicant’s evidence. [4] The Officer applied the relevant test for an IFA as described 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 Officer 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 Officer’s decision 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] Upon considering the evidence submitted and the submissions of Counsel, both written and oral, I am satisfied that the Officer’sdecision meets the applicable standard of review, that is reasonableness. [9] The Officer reasonably applied the applicable test for an IFA.

There is no basis for judicial intervention and this application forjudicial review will be dismissed; there is no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT in IMM-5716-20 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-5716-20 STYLE OF CAUSE: RALIAT ABIKE OLUFEMI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN ST. JOHN’S NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR AND TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: HENEGHAN J. DATED: OCTOBER 19, 2021 APPEARANCES : Sina Ogunleye FOR THE APPLICANT Leanne Briscoe FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Sina Ogunleye Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT