TB9-16792

TB9-16792

Although the RAD accepted the appellants' allegations as credible in part, the appellants failed to establish that Port Harcourt would expose them to a serious possibility of persecution or that relocation would be unreasonable in their particular circumstances; therefore the RPD's conclusion that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
TB9-16792
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Family Law Gender Based Violence Child Protection Female Genital Mutilation Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants had subjective fear of persecution
  2. 2 Credibility of appellants' testimony and omissions in Basis of Claim
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative existed (Port Harcourt)

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RAD accepted the appellants' allegations as credible in part, the appellants failed to establish that Port Harcourt would expose them to a serious possibility of persecution or that relocation would be unreasonable in their particular circumstances; therefore the RPD's conclusion that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division affirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA