TB9-07325

TB9-07325

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants did not meet their burden to show a serious possibility of persecution in the identified IFA (Port Harcourt) nor that relocation there would be unreasonable; the evidence did not establish that the agent of persecution had the means or motivation to locate them in the IFA and the appellants' allegations were speculative, so the RPD's decision that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is upheld.

Citation
TB9-07325
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Disposition Issued
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Credibility Assessment, Burden of Proof, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Credibility Assessment Burden of Proof +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Disposition Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists for the appellants in Port Harcourt
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether appellants demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution in the IFA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants did not meet their burden to show a serious possibility of persecution in the identified IFA (Port Harcourt) nor that relocation there would be unreasonable; the evidence did not establish that the agent of persecution had the means or motivation to locate them in the IFA and the appellants' allegations were speculative, so the RPD's decision that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act