ASHABI REBECCA FATOYINBO Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND, 2012 FC 629

Date: 20120523 Docket: IMM-7841-11 Citation: 2012 FC 629 Toronto, Ontario, May 23, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN: ASHABI REBECCA FATOYINBO Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP ANDIMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] Ms. Ashabi Rebecca Fatoyinbo (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision made by the Immigration andRefugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “Board”) on October 7, 2011. In that decision, the Board determined the Applicant isneither a convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to

section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, of theImmigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (the “Act”). [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria. She sought protection in Canada on the basis that she was being persecuted by her son-in-law who had accused her of being a witch. She also claimed a fear that the community may persecute her on the grounds that she hadbeen accused of being a witch. [3] The Board found that the Applicant’s claim against her son-in-law was more properly characterized as a vendetta than abasis of persecution giving rise to protection under the Act.

It found that an internal flight alternative (“IFA”) existed for the Applicant inthe city of Lagos and dismissed her claim. [4] The determination of a viable IFA is a question of mixed law and fact, reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see thedecision in Agudelo v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 465 at para 17 and Canada (Minister of Citizenshipand Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 , [2009] 1 SCR 339. [5] The test for a viable IFA was set out in Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (FCA), [1992] 1 FC 706 (FCA) at 710-711.

It is a two-pronged test, as follows: first, the Board must be satisfied that there is noserious possibility of a claimant being persecuted in the IFA and second, it must be objectively reasonable to expect a claimant to seeksafety in a different part of the country before seeking protection in Canada.

[6] In order to show that an IFA is unreasonable, the Applicant must provide evidence to show that conditions in the proposedIFA would jeopardize her life and safety in travelling or relocating to that IFA; see Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employmentand Immigration), (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589 (FCA) at 596-598. [7] The Applicant argues that the Board’s decision with respect to the IFA was unreasonable because it failed to take intoaccount that while she had stayed in the city of Lagos for some three months in 2010, she was in hiding at that time.

The Applicantargues that a place where she must stay in hiding is not a viable IFA. Further, she submits that the Board erred in failing to take intoaccount the Immigration and Refugee Board Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-RelatedPersecution, in determining that Lagos was a viable IFA. [8] Although there is case law that supports the view that an IFA is not viable if a person has to remain in hiding, for examplethe decision in Fosu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (2008), 2008 FC 1135 , 335 FTR 223 at para 15,each case will turn on its own facts.

In the present case, the Board considered that the Applicant had been living in the town of Minna,Niger state. This town is approximately a day’s journey from Lagos, according to the evidence of the Applicant. The Board observed thatthere was no evidence that her son-in-law, that is the alleged agent of persecution, had any business in Lagos or that he had pursued herthere once she left Minna.

The Board did not suggest that the Applicant should give up all indicia of normal life but it found that the riskof contact with her persecutor, in Lagos, was remote and did not rise to the level of a serious possibility. [9] In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the Board properly considered and applied the test for an IFA and reasonablyconcluded that Lagos provided a viable IFA to the Applicant. [10] The Applicant also argued that the Board’s finding as to an IFA was unreasonable because it failed to take into account thepsychological report which suggested that the Applicant could not relocate anywhere in Nigeria because she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”).

In short, the Applicant submits that the Board misunderstood the “essence” of that report. [11] I do not find this argument persuasive, since it appears to be a matter of disagreement, by the Applicant, with the manner inwhich the Board dealt with the report. [12] Accordingly, this application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed, no question for certification arising. “E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: IMM-7841-11 STYLE OF CAUSE: ASHABI REBECCA FATOYINBO v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO , ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MAY 22, 2012 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT BY: HENEGHAN J. DATED: MAY 23, 2012 APPEARANCES : Richard Odeleye FOR THE APPLICANT Julie Waldman FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Babalola Odeleye Toronto , ON FOR THE APPLICANT Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT