MB9-14181

MB9-14181

The appeal is dismissed because on a balance of probabilities the appellants failed to prove the proposed IFAs (Abuja or Port Harcourt) were unsafe or unreasonable: objective NDP evidence, the Nigerian JG and the appellants' own testimony do not establish that the Kingsmen have the capacity, interest or motivation to find and persecute them in those locations, and relocation would not subject them to persecution or serious harm under IRPA.

Citation
MB9-14181
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Risk Assessment, State Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Risk Assessment State Protection +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (female)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether viable Internal Flight Alternatives (IFAs) exist in Abuja or Port Harcourt
  2. 2 Whether non‑state actors (the Kingsmen) have the capacity and motivation to locate and harm the appellants anywhere in Nigeria
  3. 3 Whether refusal to subject children to FGM gives rise to persecution or serious harm

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because on a balance of probabilities the appellants failed to prove the proposed IFAs (Abuja or Port Harcourt) were unsafe or unreasonable: objective NDP evidence, the Nigerian JG and the appellants' own testimony do not establish that the Kingsmen have the capacity, interest or motivation to find and persecute them in those locations, and relocation would not subject them to persecution or serious harm under IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed