TB9-01245

TB9-01245

Although the RAD found the RPD erred in concluding the husband's family were not interested in conducting FGM, on balance of probabilities the husband's family lacked the influence and means to locate the appellants and the husband lacked strong motivation; therefore Port Harcourt is a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative and the RPD decision that the appellants are not refugees nor in need of protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-01245
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Findings, Natural Justice, Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Gender Based Violence Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Findings +2 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether husband and his family remain interested and have ability to locate and subject the Minor Appellant to FGM
  2. 2 Whether Port Harcourt is a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative
  3. 3 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible under Singh/Raza analysis

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RAD found the RPD erred in concluding the husband's family were not interested in conducting FGM, on balance of probabilities the husband's family lacked the influence and means to locate the appellants and the husband lacked strong motivation; therefore Port Harcourt is a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative and the RPD decision that the appellants are not refugees nor in need of protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed and the decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA