TB9-17255

TB9-17255

On independent review the RAD confirmed the RPD: the Principal Appellant failed to discharge the burden to show on balance of probabilities that Port Harcourt is not a viable IFA (insufficient credible evidence of agents of persecution's ability or motive to find her there, objective country documentation undermined key assertions), the Gender Guidelines were applied appropriately, most new documentary articles were reasonably available and not admitted while a post‑decision medical note was admitted but did not alter the IFA conclusion; the Minor Associate Appellant's claim fails because he is a U.S. national and no claim was advanced against the U.S.

Citation
TB9-17255
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal: Ugochukwu Udogu; Counsel for the Minister: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Gender Guidelines, Admissibility of New Evidence, Mental Health in Removal Context, Country Documentation Analysis
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Gender Guidelines Admissibility of New Evidence Mental Health in Removal Context +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Ugochukwu Udogu

Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Immigration

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an Internal Flight Alternative (Port Harcourt) is viable for the Principal Appellant
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings and adverse inferences
  3. 3 Whether the Gender Guidelines were applied appropriately

Ratio Decidendi

On independent review the RAD confirmed the RPD: the Principal Appellant failed to discharge the burden to show on balance of probabilities that Port Harcourt is not a viable IFA (insufficient credible evidence of agents of persecution's ability or motive to find her there, objective country documentation undermined key assertions), the Gender Guidelines were applied appropriately, most new documentary articles were reasonably available and not admitted while a post‑decision medical note was admitted but did not alter the IFA conclusion; the Minor Associate Appellant's claim fails because he is a U.S. national and no claim was advanced against the U.S.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • No oral hearing granted under section 110(6) IRPA