TB8-26881

TB8-26881

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that there was a serious possibility of persecution in Port Harcourt or that relocation to Port Harcourt would be unreasonable; therefore an Internal Flight Alternative existed and the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-26881
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Evidence Admissibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Evidence Admissibility

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether there is an Internal Flight Alternative in Port Harcourt
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should hold an oral hearing or admit new evidence under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that there was a serious possibility of persecution in Port Harcourt or that relocation to Port Harcourt would be unreasonable; therefore an Internal Flight Alternative existed and the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • RAD declines to admit new evidence or hold an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA