MB9-10210

MB9-10210

The RAD confirmed the RPD: Port Harcourt is a viable IFA on a balance of probabilities because available objective evidence shows indigeneship does not preclude access to housing, health or education, appellants have realistic employment prospects given qualifications, and documented violence is not shown to make Port Harcourt unsafe; the request to admit seven new documents was denied because the material predated the RPD decision and duplicated NDP content.

Citation
MB9-10210
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (final Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Indigeneship Discrimination, Female Genital Mutilation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Indigeneship Discrimination Female Genital Mutilation

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative (second prong of IFA)
  2. 2 Whether new documentary evidence should be admitted on appeal under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether appellants face persecution or serious harm due to indigeneship, security situation or undue hardship

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: Port Harcourt is a viable IFA on a balance of probabilities because available objective evidence shows indigeneship does not preclude access to housing, health or education, appellants have realistic employment prospects given qualifications, and documented violence is not shown to make Port Harcourt unsafe; the request to admit seven new documents was denied because the material predated the RPD decision and duplicated NDP content.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Request to admit seven new documents denied
  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA