Background
The applicants, a Nigerian mother and two of her children, sought refugee protection in Canada based on threats associated with the husband’s political opinions and the family’s refusal to permit female genital mutilation of the daughter. The Refugee Protection Division accepted their allegations as credible but rejected the claim in 2021 because Lagos was a viable internal flight alternative. The Refugee Appeal Division dismissed their appeal, and the Federal Court later denied leave to seek judicial review.
In a subsequent pre-removal risk assessment application, the family submitted new evidence concerning the husband’s 2023 kidnapping in Ibadan, renewed threats by a Chief Priest, a police report, affidavits, a news report, and a civil-society organization’s report. The PRRA officer acknowledged that evidence but found it insufficient to disturb the earlier conclusion that the applicants could safely and reasonably relocate to Lagos. The applicants sought judicial review, arguing that the officer mishandled the new evidence and unreasonably upheld Lagos as an internal flight alternative.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Aylen dismissed the application for judicial review. Applying reasonableness review, the Court held that the officer itemized and considered the new evidence and reasonably concluded that it did not materially alter the risk analysis. Although the evidence supported the applicants’ asserted fears, it did not show how the alleged persecutors had the means to locate them in Lagos City or why police there could not protect them.
The Court also upheld the officer’s treatment of the second branch of the internal-flight-alternative test, concerning whether relocation would be objectively unreasonable. The RPD and RAD had already considered that issue, and the officer was required to respect their findings absent new facts that might have affected the result. The applicants identified no specific new country-condition evidence demonstrating conditions that would jeopardize their lives or safety in Lagos. No question was certified.
Key Takeaways
- New evidence in a PRRA must materially address the issue that determined the earlier refugee decision; evidence confirming risk in the applicants’ home area may not defeat an internal flight alternative elsewhere.
- Where an internal flight alternative is at issue, applicants must provide evidence that the agents of harm have both the motivation and the means to find them in the proposed location.
- A PRRA officer may rely on prior RPD and RAD findings unless new facts are presented that might have changed those findings.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the limited role of a PRRA following an unsuccessful refugee claim. A PRRA is not an opportunity to relitigate previously decided issues without materially new evidence directed to the determinative findings.
For applicants challenging an internal flight alternative, evidence of continuing threats or violence must be tied specifically to the proposed relocation location. General country conditions, events elsewhere, and evidence of an persecutor’s motivation may be inadequate without concrete proof of the persecutor’s reach or of conditions making relocation unsafe or unreasonable.