Prompt:
Analyze this Refugee Protection Division decision from the Refugee Law Lab Reporter and identify key legal issues:

2023 RLLR 115 Citation: 2023 RLLR 115 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: November 27, 2023 Panel: David Jones Counsel for the Claimant(s): Idorenyin E. Amana Country: Russia RPD Number: VC3-03985 Associated RPD Number(s): N/A ATIP Number: A-2024-00593 ATIP Pages: N/A DECISION [1] MEMBER: We are now back on the record. So this is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for XXXX XXXX, who is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. ALLEGATIONS [2] The claimant fears persecution, including a risk to his life, if he were to return to Russia because of his opposition to the Russian invasion and his opposition to serving in the Russian military. The claimant also fears persecution because he will be perceived as being pro-Russian due to his Russian background if he were to return to Ukraine. The claimant is from Moscow, Russia. The claimant’s parents were both born in the territory that is now Ukraine. The claimants parents live in Russia currently. The claimants father has Russian citizenship and the claimant’s mother has Ukrainian and Russian citizenship. On XXXX XXXX, 2021, the claimant came to Canada for school and to pursue his XXXX ambitions. On February 24th, 2022, Russia began the full scale invasion of Ukraine. The claimant and his family have opposed the Russian invasion. The claimant did make a posting in support of Ukraine online on his XXXX page, and that has since been removed because of fears of what they would do to his parents. Since being in Canada, the claimant has received a summons from the Russian military to attend an enlistment office for a medical exam. In November 2022, the claimant applied for refugee protection. DETERMINATION [3] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee. ANALYSIS Identity [4] The claimant’s identity as a citizen of Russia has been established on a balance of probabilities by his testimony, the designated representative’s testimony, and his Russian passport, which is located at Exhibit 1. I also find that Ukraine is a country of reference for the claimant. With respect to the nationality of children whose parents are Ukrainian, according to Article 14 of the citizenship laws of Ukraine, which are found in Item 3.2 of the National Documentation Package for Ukraine, which is found at Exhibit 3.2, it states that, “A child who is a foreigner and one (1) of whose parents is a citizen of Ukraine and the other is a foreigner shall be registered as a citizen of Ukraine upon application of the parent being a citizen of Ukraine.” This is the claimant’s situation, as his mother is a Ukrainian citizen and his father’ is a Russian citizen. As such, it appears that the claimant has access to citizenship in Ukraine through his mother. [5] The next question is whether the acquisition of another citizenship is within the claimant’s control, where only mere formalities are required such as the completion of paperwork. That appears to be the case here for the claimant. While a report on citizenship at Item 3.8 states that administrative obstacles can delay or prevent people from exercising their right to citizenship, and the report lists the main obstacles, none of those obstacles apply to the claimant’s situation. The claimant and the designated representative testified that they were not aware about the process for obtaining Ukrainian citizenship. I note that there is no evidence to indicate that the claimant’s acquisition of Ukrainian citizenship would require more than the completion of paperwork. As such, I find that both Russia and Ukraine are countries of reference for the claimant, and he needs to establish his claim against both countries. Nexus [6] The claimant opposes the Russian invasion and in part fears persecution in Russia because of his political opinion. The claimant also fears that he will be perceived as pro-Russian in Ukraine due to his Russian background. For both countries of reference then, these allegations form a nexus to a Convention ground for the claimant based on his political opinion, both actual and imputed. The claimant further fears persecution due to his opposition to conscription in Russia and also being forced into the war in Ukraine. Credibility [7] I find that the claimant and the designated representative were both credible witnesses. In making these findings, I am relying on the principle that a claimant who affirms to tell the truth creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness. In this regard, the claimant, who was 17, testified in a straightforward manner and was able to answer questions directly. The claimant testified about how he was born in Moscow and moved to Ukraine to live for two (2) years. He returned to Moscow and lived there until he came to Canada in XXXX 2021. The claimant only once returned to Moscow, which was in the XXXX of 2021. The claimant testified about his fears of being forced to serve in the Russian armed forces and that he had already received a letter summoning him for a medical exam for the army. The claimant testified about his opposition to the invasion of Ukraine, how he has family members in Ukraine and how he views it as his homeland. The claimant also testified about how he is unable to express his opposition to the invasion, as those who oppose the war are being jailed in Russia. The claimant testified that even while he is here in Canada, he fears speaking out about the conflict because of the risks that his parents might face in Russia. [8] With respect to Ukraine, the claimant testified about his concerns if he were to return to the country due to his Russian background and how he’d be perceived as being pro-Russian. The claimant’s designated representative expanded on the claimant’s risks in Ukraine, noting that Ukraine is also sending conscripts to the war. The designated representative confirmed the testimony of the claimant and also testified about how there would be no safe location in either country for the claimant to return to. The claimant provided documents to support his claim, which are found in Exhibit 4. These documents include a Russian military service call up letter requiring the claimant to report to a military office in Moscow. The reverse of the letter indicates that a citizen who fails to appear without good reason is liable under the laws of the Russian Federation. The letter provides lists of good reasons, and those include disease or injury, or if a family members in grave health or other circumstances beyond the control of the citizen, none of which appear to apply to the claimant. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of this document, and I give it significant weight to support his claim. [9] Given the credible testimony of the claimant and his designated representative, along with the supporting documentation, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has established the facts alleged in his claim, including that the claimant opposes the Russian invasion of Ukraine and also serving in the Russian military. I also make no negative credibility findings due to the delay in applying for refugee protection. The claimant had a student visa in Canada, and the representative explained that when the claimant’s mother heard that conscripts were being sent to Ukraine, the family made the decision for the claimant to apply for refugee protection. I also note this is a sur place claim, as the country conditions had changed significantly after the claimant came to Canada. As such, I accept the explanation for the delay, especially given the stars the claimant had in Canada at the time. As the claimant is a citizen of both Russia and Ukraine, he must establish his claim against each of these countries. Well-Founded Fear – Russia [10] The country condition documents for Russia in the National Documentation Package, which are found in Exhibit 3.1, support the claimant’s fears for returning to Russia. The US Department of State report at Item 2.1 describes Russia as an authoritarian and political system dominated by President Vladimir Putin, and indicates numerous significant human rights issues in the country, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities, pervasive torture by government law enforcement officers that sometimes result in death, harsh and life-threatening conditions in prisons, arbitrary arrest and detention, political and religious prisoners and detainees, politically motivated reprisals against individuals located outside the country, severe arbitrary interference with privacy, severe suppression of freedom of expression and media, including violence against journalists and the use of anti-extremism and other laws to prosecute peaceful dissent, severe restrictions on internet freedom, severe suppression of the freedom of peaceful assembly, and severe suppression of freedom of association. The report also states that the government failed to take adequate steps to identify, investigate, prosecute or punish most officials who committed abuses and engaged in corruption, resulting in a claimant of impunity. [11] With respect to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the report indicates that Russian armed forces have committed numerous war crimes and other atrocities and abuses, including executions, torture, rape, indiscriminate attacks and attacks that have deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure which constitute war crimes. The report further notes that authorities have conducted politically motivated arrests, detentions, trials, and torture of Ukrainian citizens in Russia. Oppression of opposition to the invasion of Ukraine is also reflected in the 2023 Freedom House report found at Item 2.5, that describes how excessive use of force, routine arrests, and harsh fines and prison sentences have discouraged unsanctioned protests in the country and how the pervasive, hyperpatriotic propaganda and political repression that has increased since Russian forces invaded Ukraine have prevented individuals from being able to freely express their political views. The report also notes how excessive use of force by police is widespread. [12] A 2022 Human Rights Watch report at Item 2.18 focuses on the treatment of protesters to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The report describes it as a brutal crackdown on those who disagree with the military offensive in Ukraine, and how thousands of peaceful protesters have been arrested and face excessive use of force by the police. With respect to the claimant’s fears of being forced into the Russian army, an EU report at Item 8.4 on the treatment of military deserters since February 2022 invasion of Ukraine describes how military conscription is for male citizens between 18 and 27 and they are subject to military service, and evading conscription is punishable by fines and imprisonment. I note that the claimant is 17 years old and has received a call up letter for his medical. The EU report also describes how it has been very difficult to obtain information on how Russia is currently treating those who are evading military service, in part due to censorship laws that went into effect on March 4th, 2022. Some media reports indicate that those who refused to sign contracts with the Russian armed forces are threatened with being found to be a deserter. The report also describes media reports for captured Russian soldiers who have spoken about the use of execution squads for deserters. Based on the totality of the evidence, I find the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution in Russia due to his political opinion and opposition to the Russian invasion and his opposition to participating in the Russian armed forces. [13] I further find that given all the risks facing the claimant, including the persecution of opponents to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the claimant’s call up to the Russian military, that the claimant faces a serious forward-facing possibility of persecution if he were to return to Russia. Well-Founded Fear – Ukraine [14] The country Condition documents for Ukraine in the National Documentation Package found in Exhibit 3.2 also support the claimant’s fears of returning to that country. As noted previously, the country condition documents indicate that Russia has committed significant war crimes against civilians in Ukraine. This is reflected in other parts of the National Documentation Package, including a UN report from March 2023 at Item 1.24 that states that Russian authorities have committed a wide range of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in many regions of Ukraine. As for the claimant’s fears of being perceived as pro-Russian, in April 2022, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe report at Item 1.27 indicates that there are a large number of reports of mistreatment, acts of torture or inhumane and degrading treatment of people viewed as pro-Russian supporters carried out by the police, territorial defence forces, and civilians in Ukraine-controlled parts of the country. [15] The report indicates that those people perceived as being pro-Russian have been physically assaulted and some have faced detention. For those detained, family members have reported that they have not been advised of where their relatives are being detained or their fate. With respect to detention in Ukraine, the US Department of State report at Item 2.1 lists a number of significant human rights issues, and those include cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees by law enforcement personnel, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, arbitrary arrests or detention, as well as serious problems with the independence of the judiciary. Based on the totality of evidence, I find the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution in Ukraine due to his imputed political opinion as a perceived pro-Russian supporter due to his Russian background. I further find that, given all the risks facing the claimant, including the documented targeting of pro-Russian supporters by the territorial forces and the ongoing Russian invasion, that the claimant would face a serious forward-facing possibility of persecution if he were to return to Ukraine. State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative – Russia [16] As for Russia, given the state is the agent of harm, I find that there is no state protection available to the claimant in the country. Further, given the Russian state’s capacity, I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Russia. Accordingly, I find that there is no internal flight alternative available to the claimant in the country. State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative – Ukraine [17] I have also considered whether adequate state protection is available for the claimant in Ukraine, and I find that there is none given the claimant faces a risk from state actors and the Ukrainian territorial forces as well as from the invading Russian army. I also considered whether the claimant would have a viable internal flight alternative available to him in Ukraine, and I find that he does not. I find that the ongoing crisis in Ukraine related to the Russian invasion is affecting the entire country, and it would be unreasonable for the claimant in these circumstances to try and seek refuge elsewhere in Ukraine. This is reflected in the March 2022 UNHCR report on returns to Ukraine found in Item 1.23 that describes the situation in Ukraine as volatile and uncertain. The report states that, “In view of the volatility of the situation in the entire territory of Ukraine, UNHCR does not consider it appropriate to deny international protection to Ukrainians and former habitual residents of Ukraine on the basis of internal flight or relocation alternative.” As such, I find the claimant does not have a viable internal flight alternative available to him in Ukraine. CONCLUSION [18] For the reasons above, I determine that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, and therefore the Board accepts his claim. Given I am granting protection under section 96 of the Act, I do not find it necessary to consider the claim under section 97. ——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: 2023 RLLR 115

### Key Issues
rous significant human rights issues in the country, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities, pervasive torture by gover

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: mant is a Convention refugee. ANALYSIS Identity [4] The claimant’s identity as a citizen of Russia has been established on a balance of probabilities by his testimony, the designated representative’s testimony, and his Russian passport, which is located at Exhibit 1. I also find that Ukraine is a country of reference for the cla

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.


Prompt:
Analyze this Refugee Appeal Division decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and explain its implications for refugee determination:

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC1-00548 MC1-00549 / MC1-00550 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Date of decision August 5, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Andrea Poole Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Jeffrey Platt Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative [REDACTED] XXXXfor [REDACTED] [REDACTED] XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] [REDACTED], the Principal Appellant (PA) and designated representative for the following Minor Appellants [REDACTED], and [REDACTED] (Minor Appellants), citizens of Nigeria, appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated January 4, 2021, rejecting their claim for refugee protection under either section 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 DECISION [2] I find that the RPD did not err in its decision that the Appellants are neither Convention2 refugees nor persons in need of protection. I further find that the determinative factor regarding the application of both section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the IRPA is credibility. I therefore dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.3 OVERVIEW [3] The PA alleged in her Basis of Claim form (BOC) that, following the death of her father in 2008, her two half-sisters began to harass her and her mother, attempting - over the course of the next ten years - to secure a share in the proceeds of the father's estate. The PA, the Minor Appellants and the PA's husband travelled to the United Kingdom (UK) in XXXX 2015, staying for three weeks without claiming asylum before returning to Nigeria. The PA obtained a visitor's visa for the United States of America (USA) in XXXX 2016, and, a year later, travelled to the USA in XXXX 2017, with her two sons, again, returning to Nigeria after three months, without claiming protection. The PA left Nigeria for the USA in XXXX 2018, irregularly crossing into Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018, and claiming protection on XXXX XXXX, 2018. The PA updated her BOC on XXXX XXXX, 2019, alleging that Y, her sister in Nigeria, had been kidnapped by their half-sisters, in XXXX 2019 but was released after a month with a message that the half sisters were looking for the PA to kill her. The PA alleges that she fears, should she return to Nigeria, her half-sisters will carry out their threat to kill her. [4] A hearing was held on December 7, 2020. The RPD reserved its decision, which was rendered on January 4, 2021. The RPD found: a) No nexus to a Convention ground for asylum; b) Incompatible behaviour, with two reavailments and failure to claim either in the United Kingdom (UK) or the USA; c) Appellant's fragile psychological state neither mentioned in BOC nor otherwise documented; d) Alleged kidnapping of Appellant's sister is unbelievable as there were no supporting documents, and the BOC amendment was made eight months after the alleged incident; e) Ability of agents of persecution to know the Appellant's whereabouts equally unbelievable as her husband continues to live in the same place, unharmed; and f) Allegations that she was specifically targeted by her half-sisters were inconsistent with all the facts alleged and omitted in the narrative. [5] On appeal, the Appellants argue: a) Failure to claim does not necessarily mean that the Appellant did not have a fear. Due to Trump's policies in the USA, the PA felt she had little chance in the USA, furthermore she was then in a state of confusion; b) Regarding re-availment: because of the state of confusion, the PA felt there was no alternative but to return to Nigeria. Ultimately, she was compelled to leave Nigeria for good, as she realized that the problems with her half-sisters were not going away; c) The presumption of truthfulness is in favor of the appellant; d) PA's husband's actions do not alter the problematic situation she faces; e) BOC was updated with the kidnapping made one year before the hearing; the Appellants should not be unfairly blamed by the Board; f) Omission to mention being specifically targeted is not a fundamental one, as the substance of the claim remains intact; and g) The nexus is: Membership in a particular social group. This situation is a "family affair." [6] The Appellants are neither disclosing new evidence nor requesting an oral hearing. NEW EVIDENCE AND ORAL HEARING [7] The Appellant has disclosed no new evidence, pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. The RAD can only hold an oral hearing when certain conditions respecting new evidence are met.4 In this case, because no new evidence was submitted on appeal, the circumstances for holding an oral hearing have not been met. I am therefore unable to grant the Appellant's request for an oral hearing. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION ("RAD") [8] The RAD reviews decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it. The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing and weighing oral testimony. Unless specifically stated below, I have applied a correctness standard.5 ANALYSIS Failure to claim and re-availments [9] I find that the PA's actions - her failure to claim protection and her re-availments - undermine her credibility. The RPD found the PA's and her husband's failure to claim protection in the UK - the first country in which they arrived after allegedly fleeing Nigeria in XXXX 2015 - incompatible with a genuine subjective fear. The RPD also found the PA's failure to claim protection in the USA when she and her sons were there for two months in the summer of 2017 equally undermined her credibility regarding the reasons she claimed compelled her to leave Nigeria and drew a negative inference from the PA's return to their home in Nigeria on both occasions. The PA did not address the RPD's finding regarding her failure to claim in the UK. Regarding her failure to claim protection in the USA, the PA argues, on appeal, that failure to claim does not axiomatically mean lack of fear and that, once in the USA, the PA felt the immigration policies of the then-President, Trump, "made her feel she had little chance of getting accepted."6 Moreover, the PA argues, she was in a fragile emotional state of mind at the time, which led her to make what the Appellants term an "erroneous" decision to return to Nigeria, and that it was her mental fragility that prevented her from making a "coherent decision," believing she had no other alternative but to return to Nigeria without claiming protection.7 [10] I have reviewed the record before me. The Appellants claim that the PA's half-sisters harassed her for years - since the death of the PA's father in 2008 - to the point that, by XXXX XXXX, 2015, when the half-sisters arrived, uninvited, at the AA's 10th birthday party, the Appellants became so fearful that nine days later, the family moved from Ketu, in Lagos State to Ibadan in Oyo State, and that her fear did not diminish but grew until 2018 when the Appellants finally left Nigeria. The RPD asked the PA at the hearing why, given her alleged fear, they did not claim protection either in the UK in XXXX 2015 or in the USA during the summer of 2017, but returned to Nigeria on both occasions. The PA testified that only once she was in the USA did she learn of Trump's immigration policies and, deciding she had very little chance of success - and in a state of confusion - made the mistake of returning to Nigeria. The RPD, noting that the PA is an educated woman with a university degree (who had testified how, since 2015, she had carefully researched the optimum path to acquiring American visas and planned the trip to the UK to establish a travel history), did not accept the PA's testimony that she only learned of Trump's policies once in the USA - particularly as the Appellants had had their visas in hand for a year before leaving for the USA.8 Neither did the RPD accept the PA's explanation regarding her re-availament to Nigeria. The RPD did not find the PA's testimony reasonable that - notwithstanding her fear - upon learning of Trump's immigration policies, she could conceive of no other country to which to take her sons - apart from back home to Nigeria. [11] I agree with the RPD's analysis, and for the same reasons. I do not accept that the well-educated PA - who carefully researched the requirements for visas to the USA and determined that a short family vacation to the UK would establish precisely the kind of travel history that would optimize their chances to obtain an American visitor's visa - was simultaneously so confused that she failed to note the international media discussions concerning Trump's immigration policies prior to their departure for the USA in XXXX 2017. I also do not accept the Appellants' arguments that failure to claim does not mean absence of fear and that her specific failure to claim in the USA was the product of a disordered mind incapable of making a coherent decision for the reasons that follow. The PA testified that, once in the USA, her confused state of mind continued, resulting in her deciding to return to Nigeria. But the Appellants have disclosed no evidence - either contemporary or otherwise - that substantiates their claim that the PA was in a fragile state of mind at any time, let alone when she decided to take her sons back to Nigeria in 2017. For that reason I also do not accept that the PA remained in such a state of confusion during her three months in the USA that - had she determined that her chances of a successful claim were low - she was incapable of identifying any other country where she might go (especially given her recent family trip to the UK where her brother XXXX resides), other than to return to Nigeria.9 I also find that the PA's actions are not reasonably compatible with her claims of increasing fear of her half-sisters and cannot be explained by claims of confusion, without any evidence to establish the presence of a disordered state of mind. I therefore find that the Appellants' failure to claim in the UK in 2015, remaining in Nigeria for a year after being granted visas to the USA, failure to claim during their several months' residency in the USA in the summer of 2017 - and the family's two re-availments to Nigeria - undermine the Appellants' credibility. The kidnapping of the PA's sister, Y [12] The RPD found that the PA's allegations regarding her sister's kidnapping were not credible partly because: a) the PA adduced no evidence in the form of affidavits or letters either from Y or from R, the sister who informed the PA (by text) of the kidnapping; b) the PA's husband continued to live in the same place unharmed; and c) the PA did not update her BOC for eight months following the alleged kidnapping. The Appellants argue, on appeal, that: i) the presumption of truth is on the side of Appellants; ii) the PA's husband continuing to reside in the same town does not alter the problematic situation the PA faces; and iii) the PA updated her BOC a year ahead of the December 2020 hearing before the RPD, and the RPD erred in involving this element of timing in its assessment of the PA's claim. The PA updated her BOC in a timely fashion [13] I have reviewed the record before me. The PA has alleged that, on XXXX XXXX, 2019, her sister R texted her to inform her that their half-sisters had come to the PA's late mother's house (occupied at the time of the alleged kidnapping by the PA's two sisters, R and Y) and kidnapped Y. The PA further alleged that the two half-sisters held Y for a month in order to extract the PA's location from Y, before releasing her. The PA added these allegations to her BOC on XXXX XXXX, 2019, eight months later. The RPD asked the PA at the hearing why she did not update her BOC earlier as these were significant new allegations. The PA testified that she had no time as she was pressed by work obligations. The RPD found that her failure to update her BOC earlier undermined her credibility. I disagree. The PA is represented by experienced counsel. There was no need for the PA to update her BOC earlier. The PA amended her BOC a year before the hearing took place, thereby meeting the 10-day requirement for the disclosure of evidence before the RPD. I therefore find that the RPD erred in involving the PA's timing of her update in the RPD's assessment of her claim and I find that her actions here do not impugn her credibility or her claim. The failure of the PA's husband to relocate [14] I find the PA's husband's choice to remain in Ketu, Lagos State, is not consistent with the PA's testimony at the hearing and, moreover, is also not consistent with someone who feared discovery and I find this inconsistency undermines the PA's credibility for the reasons that follow. The RPD drew a negative inference from the PA's husband continuing to reside, unmolested, in the same town where the PA alleged that her half-sisters knew her to have resided before 2018 and where they had previously visited and harassed her. The Appellants argue on appeal that the PA's husband continuing to reside in the same town does not alter the problematic situation the PA faces. I have reviewed the record before me and I find that the Appellants' argument is not consistent with the PA's testimony, which describes both the PA and husband as fearing the PA's half-sisters. The PA testified at the hearing that her husband also feared her half-sisters, that he was equally imperiled by them, and that the PA decided to relocate the family to Ibadan in 2015 because she knew "that I have to take my children and with my husband we have to run away from where I was living."10 The PA was asked by the RPD at the hearing where her husband was living. The PA testified that, although he had attempted to acquire a visa for the USA (it was not granted), that although he had attempted (unsuccessfully) to find employment in Benin he had returned to Nigeria and lives in Ketu. I find this choice - after having failed to secure employment in Benin - to return - not just to Nigeria, but to the very same town in Lagos State which the agents of persecution allegedly knew as the PA's last address in Nigeria - is not consistent with the testimony of the PA that she and her husband both feared her half-sisters. I find this inconsistency undermines the Appellants' credibility and I also find that the failure of the PA's husband to take steps to relocate away from Ketu also generally undermines the allegations of such fear that it compelled the family to flee - first to Ibadan and then to the USA. The presumption of truth [15] The PA did not disclose any evidence or communication from R or Y substantiating the allegations concerning Y's alleged kidnapping. The RPD found that the PA's failure to disclose any evidence at all to substantiate her claims that Y had been kidnapped, undermined her credibility. The Appellant argues that the presumption of truthfulness lies with the PA. I have reviewed the record before me. [16] I find the presumption of truthfulness has been rebutted by the PA's actions. The RPD asked the PA at the hearing why she had not disclosed the text which she alleged R had sent her telling her of Y's kidnapping. The PA testified that she did not know how to print out texts from a phone, but that she still possessed R's texts on her phone and offered to disclose them.11 The PA did not subsequently disclose these texts. The RPD then asked the PA why she had not disclosed letters or affidavits from either R or Y to substantiate Y's kidnapping. MEMBER: And why did you not present a letter or an affidavit from your sister explaining what happened to them in 2019? PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT: I didn't tell them to write me a letter. MEMBER: But why not, why not ask them to provide a letter or an affidavit of what happened in 2019? PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT: The only person that I told about was my uncle and he knows about all this (inaudible) and all that, he was the only one that wrote a letter but I was - due to the civil unrest in Nigeria I don't know the reason why I couldn't receive the letter. MEMBER: I'm sorry, you said that the only person who knew about the kidnapping is your uncle? PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT: No, I said the person I told about - who also knows about this, my uncle knows about this that she was - because they had to tell everybody that --- MEMBER: Okay. But this is not my question, and I really want you to answer that specific question. Why did you not ask your sister to provide you with a letter or an affidavit about the kidnapping that happened in 2019? PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT: I never knew I could - something I could do, because we even have (inaudible) talk on the phone again now. I didn't tell her that, I didn't know it was something that I had to. [17] I find the PA's responses to the RPD's repeated questions regarding why the PA did not ask her sisters to write a letter or affidavit to be evasive. The PA testified that she speaks with her sisters by telephone and therefore there was no physical impediment to her requesting substantiation from her sisters.12 Moreover, the PA is represented by experienced counsel. I therefore do not accept her testimony that she was unaware that she could disclose letters or affidavits from either R or Y to substantiate the kidnapping. I find that the failure to provide any substantiation of Y's kidnapping from either sister undermines the PA's credibility. The PA's omitting from her BOC, being specifically targeted by her half-sisters [18] I find the PA's credibility undermined by her omission from her BOC, allegations which later appeared as testimony. At the hearing, the PA testified that she believed her half-sisters were motivated to kill her because they believed the PA was her father's favourite and had inherited her father's house. The RPD drew a negative inference from this testimony's not having been included in the PA's BOC. The Appellants argue on appeal that the omission does not affect the substance of the PA's claim. I have reviewed the record before me. I find the PA's claim that her half-sisters were targeting her specifically because they believed her to have inherited her late father's house to be a significant and material aspect of her claim. The PA was asked at the hearing to explain the omission of this important element of her claim from her BOC. The PA was unable to provide an explanation. MEMBER: And why do you believe that they would be looking for you specifically? PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT: Because when we came for, when we went for the meeting before my mother died, they said there that they've seen how my father loved me so much and really I was very (inaudible) like that. So this was kind of part of jealousy that I think from their own part, and they think that everything he has might want to give it to me (sic). MEMBER: Why did you not mention anywhere in your narrative that they specifically believed that you were the inheritor of the house? PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT: (Inaudible)? MEMBER: Because you never mentioned anywhere in the narrative that your sisters believed that you were the one that was to inherit the house specifically? Why not? PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT: I didn't (inaudible) because I felt - the common lawyer told me that I should just write some specific happenings, not that I should write too many notes or something. I was just being brief that we actually went for the meeting and all that. MEMBER: Did you not believe that it would be important to explain why your stepsisters would be specifically interested in you? PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT: I think it's important. MEMBER: If you do think it's important then why not mention it? PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT: [No verbal response].13 MEMBER: Okay. I think I'm done with my questions. [19] I find the allegation that the half-sisters targeted the PA specifically - and not her two sisters R or Y - goes directly to the alleged source of the half-sisters' harassment of the PA (alone) since the death of their father. I find that the omission of such a central and material element of her claim from the BOC undermines the credibility of the PA's claim because: a) the BOC sets out the PA's claim and the history of the half-sisters' alleged ten years of harassment in abundantly good detail; and b) the PA updated her BOC almost a year after initially claiming protection. No Convention nexus exists through the PA's membership in a particular social group - her family [20] The RPD found that no nexus existed linking the PA's claim to a Convention ground. The Appellants argue, on appeal, that a nexus lies in the PA's membership in a particular social group: her family. I have reviewed the record before me. The Supreme Court of Canada, in Ward, held, when addressing what constituted a particular social group, that: "the meaning assigned to 'particular social group' in the Act should take into account the general underlying themes of the defence of human rights and anti-discrimination that form the basis for the international refugee protection initiative."14 Further, as was later identified, in M.C.I. v. B380, simply being a member of a particular social group is not sufficient on its own; "there must be something about a group which is related to discrimination or human rights."15 Therefore, the Appellants must fear persecution because of membership in a particular social group and not because of what they do as an individual. Here, the PA is innately and unchangeably a member of her family, but not all members of her family are being discriminated against or persecuted by the half-sisters for their membership therein. The PA does not allege that her half-sisters are targeting her simply because she is a member of her family, nor does she claim that they are persecuting all members of the family. She has claimed and testified that they harass her - and her only - in order to pressure her into relinquishing an allegedly inherited house. There is no relation here to discrimination or an infringement of the PA's human rights or those of her family. The PA is, allegedly, enmeshed in what is - essentially - a property dispute between the potential heirs and beneficiaries of the PA's father, who died intestate.16 For all the above reason, I find there is no nexus to a Convention ground in the PA's membership in a particular social group - her family. CONCLUSION [21] For all the above reasons, I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (signed) Andrea Poole Andrea Poole August 5, 2022 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (IRPA) S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention. 3 IRPA S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, at para 111(1)(a). 4 IRPA, S.C. 2001, c. 27, section 110(6). 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 157, at para. 103; see also Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 (CanLII), [2019] 2 FCR 597. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, at p. 15. 7 Ibid. 8 The Appellants obtained their American visas in XXXX 2016 and flew to the USA in XXXX 2017. See Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at para. 18. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Basis of Claim form (BOC), at p. 30. 10 Transcript of the RPD Hearing held on December 7, 2020, at p.. 29, lines 17-20; at p. 30, lines 43-44. 11 Ibid., at p. 47, line 15. 12 Ibid., at p. 47, lines 40-41. 13 The RPD's decision indicates that at this point the PA did not reply to the RPD's question, but shook her head. See Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at para. 31. 14 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward [1993] 2 SCR 689, at para. 70. 15 M.C.I. v. B380, 2012 FC 1334, paras. 23, 24. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Letter from the Office of the Administrator General and Public Trustee, XXXX XXXX, 2016, at p. 199. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC1-00548 MC1-00549 / MC1-00550 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: MC1-00548

### Key Issues
BER: Okay. But this is not my question, and I really want you to answer that specific question. Why did you not ask your sister to provide you with a letter or an affidavit about t

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: lied a correctness standard.5 ANALYSIS Failure to claim and re-availments [9] I find that the PA's actions - her failure to claim protection and her re-availments - undermine her credibility. The RPD found the PA's and her husband's failure to claim protection in the UK - the first country in which they arrived after allegedly f

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.