TB9-04237

TB9-04237

The RPD's finding that a viable internal flight alternative existed in Ibadan and its application of the Gender Guideline were correct; the Appellants failed to meet the claimant's burden to show on a balance of probabilities that relocation to Ibadan would expose them to a serious possibility of persecution or would be unreasonably harsh, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision affirmed.

Citation
TB9-04237
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision (rad Reasons)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division affirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Related Persecution, Standard of Review, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Gender Related Persecution Standard of Review Burden of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision (rad Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Ibadan
  2. 2 Whether the RPD properly applied the Chairperson's Gender Guideline in assessing a woman fearing gender-related persecution
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of review for RAD review of RPD findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's finding that a viable internal flight alternative existed in Ibadan and its application of the Gender Guideline were correct; the Appellants failed to meet the claimant's burden to show on a balance of probabilities that relocation to Ibadan would expose them to a serious possibility of persecution or would be unreasonably harsh, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)