The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Nwobi’s application for judicial review of the refusal of his refugee claim, finding no reviewable error in the Refugee Appeal Division’s internal flight alternative analysis. In Nwobi v. Canada, 2026 FC 1229, the Court found it was reasonable for the RAD to conclude that he had not shown it was impossible to relinquish disputed inherited property to relatives he feared.
Refugee claim centred on inherited property dispute
Mr. Nwobi, a citizen of Nigeria, claimed refugee protection on the basis that two uncles threatened his life in connection with property he inherited from his father. He said he had only recently learned of the property, did not have documentation proving ownership and could not comply with his uncles’ demands. He also alleged that armed men hired by his uncles attacked him three times before he fled to Canada.
The Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division both dismissed the claim. They found that Lagos was an internal flight alternative, reasoning that it would be reasonable to expect Mr. Nwobi to relinquish the property to avoid harm. Both divisions also concluded that he had not established that the absence of documentation prevented him from doing so.
Court reviewed the RAD’s factual finding
Justice Sébastien Grammond characterized the RAD’s conclusion that Mr. Nwobi had not shown it was impossible to transfer the property as essentially a factual finding. The Court stated that, on factual issues, judicial review intervention is available only where the decision-maker has fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence.
The Court was not persuaded that the RAD had made such an error. It noted that Mr. Nwobi bore the burden of proving his allegation that transferring the property was impossible.
Lack of evidence supported the RAD’s conclusion
The RAD reasonably noted that Mr. Nwobi’s claim of impossibility was unsupported beyond his statement that he did not possess ownership documents. His Basis of Claim form stated that his father’s business associate had given him a tour of the property, which the Court said suggested that he at least knew where it was.
The RAD also referred to Nigeria’s well-developed legal system. The Court found that the RAD could infer, absent contrary evidence, that Mr. Nwobi could divest himself of the land or obtain professional help to do so. Mr. Nwobi had not provided a legal opinion or other evidence supporting his assertion that he could not relinquish the property through any means.
The Court held that the RAD was entitled to draw inferences from the evidence and to state a default position where evidence was absent. Mr. Nwobi’s failure to prove the alleged impossibility of transferring the property was therefore fatal to his claim.
Application dismissed with no certified question
Mr. Nwobi also argued that the RAD failed to mention several items of evidence concerning the alleged agents of persecution and their motivation. The Court disagreed, stating that a decision-maker is not required to refer to every piece of evidence.
Because the RAD found that the uncles would no longer be motivated to pursue Mr. Nwobi if he gave up the property, the critical issue was whether he could transfer it. The Court concluded that the RAD was not required to address other issues in detail. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and no question was certified.
Source: Federal Court Decisions