Olasupo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Olasupo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2022-02-07
Neutral citation
2022 FC 151
File numbers
IMM-1312-21
Decision Content
Date: 20220207
Docket: IMM-1312-21
Citation: 2022 FC 151
St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, February 7, 2022
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
OLUWATOYIN GBEMISOLA OLASUPO
AMEERAH OLAMIDE OLASUPO
ABDRAHMAN OLABODE OLASUPO
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION CANADA
Respondent
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] Ms. Oluwatoyin Gbemisola Olasupo (the “Principal Applicant”) and her children Ameerah Olamide Olasupo and Abdrahman Olabode Olasupo (collectively “the Applicants”) seek judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD”), dismissing their appeal from a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”) for protection.
[2] The Applicants are citizens of Nigeria. They base their claim for protection upon fear of persecution resulting from the political activities of the Principal Applicant’s husband. He has fled Nigeria.
[3] The RPD found that an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”) is available to the Applicants in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
[4] The test for a viable IFA is addressed in Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1991), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (Fed. C.A.), at 710-711. The test is two pronged and provides as follows:
- First, the Board must be satisfied that there is no serious possibility of a claimant being persecuted in the IFA and
- Second, it must be objectively reasonable to expect a claimant to seek safety in a different part of the country before seeking protection in Canada.
[5] In order to show that an IFA is unreasonable, an applicant must show that conditions in the proposed IFA would jeopardize life and safety in travelling or relocating to that IFA; see Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1993), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (Fed. C.A.), at 596-598.
[6] The decision of the RAD is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov (2019), 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.).
[7] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on that decision”; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.
[8] On the basis of the materials contained in the Certified Tribunal Record, I am satisfied that the RAD reasonably concluded that an IFA is available to the Applicants.
[9] The reasons of the RAD show that it considered the evidence before it and considered the circumstances of the Applicants. The RAD applied the relevant legal test. I am not persuaded that the Applicants have shown any error that requires judicial intervention and the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[10] There is no question for certification proposed.
JUDGMENT in IMM-1312-21
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed, there is no question for certification proposed.
“E. Heneghan”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
IMM-1312-21
STYLE OF CAUSE:
OLUWATOYIN GBEMISOLA OLASUPO, AMEERAH OLAMIDE OLASUPO, ABDRAHMAN OLABODE OLASUPO v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING:
HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN TORONTO, ONTARIO AND ST. JOHN’S, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
DATE OF HEARING:
FEBRUARY 3, 2022
REASONS AND JUDGMENT:
HENEGHAN J.
DATED:
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Tina Hlimi
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Sally Thomas
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Tina Hlimi
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT