TB9-18636

TB9-18636

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to meet their burden to show Port Harcourt was an objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh IFA; the new evidence admitted was insufficiently concrete and did not establish that relocation would jeopardize the male appellant's life or safety, therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB9-18636
Parties
Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Persons in Need of Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Convention Refugee Determination Persons in Need of Protection 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division correctly found a viable Internal Flight Alternative (Port Harcourt)
  2. 2 Whether new evidence admitted on appeal met s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza criteria
  3. 3 Whether relocation to Port Harcourt would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in the appellants' personal circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to meet their burden to show Port Harcourt was an objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh IFA; the new evidence admitted was insufficiently concrete and did not establish that relocation would jeopardize the male appellant's life or safety, therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated June 24, 2019 is confirmed