Background
Ebenezer Rafiu Muraina, a Nigerian citizen, sought refugee protection claiming persecution by Fulani herdsmen who caused harm in his community. He had organized community members to resist the herdsmen and later organized a protest against police for failing to protect residents. He also feared police retribution for the protest. The Refugee Protection Division rejected his claim, and the Refugee Appeal Division upheld that decision, finding a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) existed within Nigeria. Muraina sought judicial review, challenging the IFA analysis.
The core issue was whether the RAD erred in concluding that Muraina could safely relocate to another part of Nigeria. Under Canadian refugee law, an IFA removes a claimant’s Convention Refugee status if there is no serious possibility of persecution in the alternative location and that location is reasonable.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Go dismissed the application. On the first prong of the IFA test, the court upheld the RAD’s finding that the Fulani herdsmen lacked both motivation and means to pursue Muraina in the alternative location. The RAD reasonably found that Muraina had previously relocated within Nigeria and lived for two years without contact from the herdsmen despite working and attending church openly. His assertion that a church attack was targeting him was found speculative and unsupported. The RAD also reasonably concluded the herdsmen lacked the means to locate him, noting limited evidence that the specific individuals he opposed held political connections, and that Muraina had no personal knowledge of how such connections could be leveraged years after he left his community.
On the second prong—whether conditions in the IFA would jeopardize his life and safety—the court found no reviewable error. Muraina had failed to raise this argument before the RAD in his initial submissions. More significantly, the court reviewed the RPD hearing audio and found that Muraina had actually testified he had no problem finding employment or accommodation in the alternative location, contradicting his later assertions that access to work and housing was impossible.
Key Takeaways
- Applicants challenging an IFA must provide concrete evidence of both the motivation and means of their persecutors, not mere speculation or assertion of political connections.
- Previous successful relocation within a country without contact from persecutors can support a finding that an IFA is viable.
- Arguments not raised at the administrative hearing stage cannot be faulted to the tribunal; new arguments introduced for the first time at judicial review typically fail.
- Credibility issues, such as testimony contradicting later submissions, will be resolved against the applicant on judicial review under the reasonableness standard.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the stringent evidentiary burden applicants must meet to challenge IFA findings. Canadian courts apply the reasonableness standard from Canada v. Vavilov to refugee tribunal decisions, meaning applicants must show the decision was unreasonable, not merely that they disagree with it. Muraina demonstrates that bare assertions about persecutors’ connections or capabilities—without documentary support or personal knowledge—are insufficient to overturn a tribunal’s IFA analysis.
The decision also emphasizes procedural discipline: refugee claimants must present their complete case before the tribunal, as new arguments introduced at judicial review or contradicted by prior testimony face significant obstacles. For practitioners, this reinforces the importance of coherent testimony and comprehensive written submissions addressing all elements of the IFA test at the administrative stage, before seeking court review.