ANGELA UCHECHI SUCCESS AZUKA Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2023 FC 700

Date: 20230519 Docket: IMM-8845-22 Citation: 2023 FC 700 Ottawa, Ontario, May 19, 2023 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond BETWEEN:ANGELA UCHECHI SUCCESS AZUKAApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Ms. Azuka seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB]denying her claim for refugee status.

I am dismissing her application, because the RAD reasonably found that she would not have a well-founded fear of persecution in her home country of Nigeria on account of her gender. [2] Before the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the IRB, Ms. Azuka asserted a fear of persecution based on political opinion. Sheonly made a tangential reference to gender-based violence. The RPD dismissed her claim. [3] Before the RAD, Ms. Azuka did not pursue her claim based on political opinion.

Rather, she filed new evidence to the effect that shewas victim of gender-based violence in Nigeria and that, for this reason, she had a well-founded fear of persecution on account ofmembership in the particular social group of women. The RAD accepted the new evidence and accepted that Ms.

Azuka had beensubjected to the following instances of gender-based violence: . . . she was raped twice, once a child by an older cousin and once as a teenager by her uncle; she was subjected to FGM[female genital mutilation]; she felt pressured by her family to get married; she was emotionally abused by her estrangedhusband’s family; she was physically and emotionally abused by her estranged husband; and a family friend sought sexualfavours in exchange for a favourable job reference. [4] However, even if it accepted the facts as alleged by Ms.

Azuka, the RAD noted that she did not claim a fear of persecution at thehands of the same persons who harmed her in the past. The RAD also considered Ms. Azuka’s submission that persons who have asimilar situation in Nigeria would have a well-founded fear of persecution.

On this issue, the RAD found as follows: I accept fully accept [sic] that the country condition evidence referred by the Appellant—as well as that elsewhere in theNDP—shows that there is mistreatment and abuse of women in Nigeria, including the discrimination of older women whoare not married, and that they face discrimination in areas such as employment and access to housing.

However, even when Iconsider this information alongside the Appellant’s evidence of her experiences, I find that she has not shown that matters inNigeria are such that women in general or older women who are not married are likely to face a serious possibility ofpersecution based on their gender, their age, or their marital status, whether separately or cumulatively.

I note, moreover, thatthe discriminatory treatment that women or older single women may face in Nigeria has not been shown to be “sufficientlyserious or systematic enough” to rise to the level of persecution, whether considered on an individual or cumulative basis. [5] Ms. Azuka argues that the RAD’s findings are unreasonable. [6] She first takes issue with the fact that the RAD "“required [her] to prove that she will be persecuted by the same individuals in thefuture.”" This, however, is a misstatement of the RAD’s reasoning.

In reality, the RAD analyzed two different potential sources of awell-founded fear of persecution: continued persecution by the same agents and persecution targeting a group of similarly situatedpersons. The RAD simply noted that Ms. Azuka did not base her claim on the former possibility, and went on to analyze the latter. Indoing so, the RAD did not require Ms. Azuka to prove a personalized risk. [7] Ms.

Azuka then takes issue with the RAD’s statement to the effect that The question becomes whether the Appellant has shown that the abuse or harassment in Nigeria is sufficiently serious orsystematic to substantiate a claim that all people in Nigeria who share the Appellant’s profile are deserving of refugeeprotection, i.e., a legally separated, female journalist, in her mid-fifties, who has suffered serious gender-based abuse. [8] I fail to see any error here.

These statements are in line with Salibian v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (FCA), [1990] 3 FC 250 (CA) at 258, in which Justice Robert Décary stated that . . . the applicant can show that the fear he had resulted not from reprehensible acts committed or likely to be committeddirectly against him but from reprehensible acts committed or likely to be committed against members of a group to which hebelonged. [9] It stands to reason that when membership in a group subject to persecution is sufficient to ground refugee status, all persons whoshare the same characteristics or, in other words, all members of the group, will have an objective basis for their fear, which is an

essential component of refugee status. I do not understand the RAD’s comments quoted above as requiring Ms. Azuka to prove thatevery women in Nigeria has suffered persecution, nor that they have a subjective fear. Rather, the RAD simply meant that Ms. Azukahad to prove that the mistreatment of the members of the alleged group provides an objective basis for every member of the group tohave a well-founded fear of persecution. [10] This latter issue is indeed the crux of the case. In this regard, Ms.

Azuka argues that the RAD’s finding quoted above at paragraph[4] is "“obviously unreasonable,”" as it ignores "“overwhelming evidence”" of the mistreatment of women in Nigeria. [11] I am not persuaded that the RAD made this error. The RAD acknowledged that it needed to review the national documentationpackage [NDP] for Nigeria. It provided a one-paragraph

summary of the contents of the NDP regarding gender-based violence anddiscrimination against women, which it accepted fully. In her written submissions, Ms. Azuka did not explain in what respect the RAD’sassessment is deficient nor what evidence was overlooked. At the hearing, when pressed about the issue, she simply referred to herwritten submissions before the RAD, which contain a two-page

summary of highlights from the NDP. However, on judicial review, it isnot enough to reiterate the submissions made to the decision-maker, without explaining in what respect the assessment of the evidence isunreasonable. Moreover, the RAD substantially agreed with the facts on which Ms. Azuka was relying. [12] It seems, therefore, that Ms. Azuka’s real complaint is with the RAD’s legal conclusion to the effect that these facts do not justify awell-founded fear of persecution or, in other words, that the cumulative discrimination endured by Nigerian women does not rise to thelevel of persecution.

However, she did not make any submissions directly challenging this legal conclusion, nor point to case lawreaching a conclusion opposite to the RAD’s. Rather, the RAD’s reasoning in this case parallels that found in previous decisions: X (Re), at paragraph 26; X (Re), at paragraph 17. For this reason, I am unable to conclude that theRAD’s decision was unreasonable. [13] Ms. Azuka also challenges the portions of the decision where the RAD dismisses her submissions dealing with the manner in whichthe RPD dealt with certain aspects of the evidence.

However, as I noted above, the RPD only addressed the issue of persecution based onpolitical opinion, which was no longer at issue before the RAD. The RAD accepted all the facts Ms. Azuka put forward and essentiallyanalyzed her claim anew. The RPD’s findings played little, if any, role in this process. It is thus not necessary to address Ms. Azuka’ssubmissions in this regard. [14] For these reasons, Ms. Azuka’s application for judicial review will be dismissed. JUDGMENT in file IMM-8845-22 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that 1. The application for judicial review is dismissed. 2. No question is certified.

"Sébastien Grammond" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-8845-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: ANGELA UCHECHI SUCCESS AZUKA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIPAND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: May 17, 2023 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: GRAMMOND J. DATED: May 19, 2023 APPEARANCES:

Arghavan Gerami For The Applicant Yusuf Khan For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Gerami Law PC Ottawa, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For The Respondent