TB6-15213

TB6-15213

The RAD, after its own review of the record and law, found the RPD did not err: Abuja is a viable internal flight alternative for these Appellants and relocation there is not unreasonable; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-15213
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX); Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal Heard and Decided by Rad; Reasons and Decision Issued
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Under S.110(6), Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) Standard of Review

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal Heard and Decided by Rad; Reasons and Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Viability of internal flight alternative (Abuja)
  2. 2 Credibility of the principal appellant and weight of testimony
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of new documentary evidence under s.110(4)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD, after its own review of the record and law, found the RPD did not err: Abuja is a viable internal flight alternative for these Appellants and relocation there is not unreasonable; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated October 6, 2016 is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA