TB9-21371

TB9-21371

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Port Harcourt is not a viable internal flight alternative; credible objective country evidence and appellants' own delay and omissions show refusal of FGM by both parents is a realistic option and relocation to Port Harcourt would not constitute undue hardship, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB9-21371
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final Decision (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Gender Based Persecution Female Genital Mutilation Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility +1 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final Decision (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants face a serious possibility of persecution in Port Harcourt (internal flight alternative)
  2. 2 Whether appellants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Port Harcourt is not a viable internal flight alternative; credible objective country evidence and appellants' own delay and omissions show refusal of FGM by both parents is a realistic option and relocation to Port Harcourt would not constitute undue hardship, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Dismissal of appeal; confirmation of RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection