Background
Akintomide Olusegun Akinrelere, a Nigerian citizen, alleged that he and his father faced threats after reporting a cannabis-growing operation discovered on family land. Authorities seized the land, destroyed the cannabis, and arrested some participants. Akinrelere alleged that an associate involved in the operation later hired assassins who murdered his father and continued threatening him by telephone.
Akinrelere left Nigeria for Canada in June 2022 and subsequently sought refugee protection. The Refugee Protection Division rejected his claim because it found viable internal flight alternatives in Abuja, Lagos, and Port Harcourt. On appeal, the Refugee Appeal Division identified and corrected errors in the RPD’s treatment of the claim but independently concluded that the same three cities were viable alternatives.
Akinrelere sought judicial review, arguing that the RAD should have returned the case to the RPD after finding errors and that its analysis of both parts of the internal-flight-alternative test was unreasonable.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Fuhrer dismissed the application. The Court held that the RAD reasonably decided the appeal itself rather than remit it to the RPD. The RAD may weigh the evidence and substitute its own findings, and remittal is warranted only when it cannot make a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD. Akinrelere had not explained why the RAD needed such evidence.
The RAD also reasonably found insufficient objective evidence that the alleged persecutors retained the means and motivation to locate Akinrelere in the proposed cities. It permissibly considered that more than two years had passed without further incidents and that neither Akinrelere nor his immediate family had been contacted after he left Nigeria. The RAD did not treat the lack of family contact as dispositive but assessed it with the remaining evidence.
On the second part of the test, the RAD reasonably addressed the socioeconomic concerns Akinrelere had raised, including employment, housing, language, and kidnapping risks. Given his multilingual ability, university education, and Nigerian work experience, the evidence did not establish that relocation would jeopardize his life or safety. The Court found no reviewable error and certified no question of general importance.
Key Takeaways
- When the RAD identifies errors in an RPD decision, it may correct them and substitute its own findings unless a final determination requires rehearing oral evidence.
- Credible evidence of past threats does not eliminate a claimant’s obligation to provide sufficient objective evidence that the agent of persecution remains motivated and able to locate the claimant in a proposed internal flight alternative.
- Elapsed time without further incidents or attempts to contact a claimant or the claimant’s family may support a finding of no ongoing interest when considered in the context of the full evidentiary record.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the RAD’s appellate role as more than a body that merely identifies RPD errors: it may conduct its own evidentiary analysis and resolve a claim without remittal when the existing record permits a final determination.
It also illustrates the demanding burden on refugee claimants challenging an internal flight alternative. Past persecution and generalized socioeconomic or security concerns may be insufficient without concrete evidence showing both an ongoing, location-specific risk and conditions that would make relocation objectively unreasonable.