MB9-15591

MB9-15591

The RAD affirms the RPD: the appellants failed to discharge the burden to show a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life/torture under ss.96/97 in Lagos or Benin City and have not shown relocation would be objectively unreasonable; therefore Lagos and Benin City are viable IFAs and the appeals are dismissed, confirming the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-15591
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Nigerian Citizen Appellants: XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor US Citizen Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Mental Health in Protection Claims, Indigeneity and Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Convention Refugee Determination Mental Health in Protection Claims +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

XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Nigerian Citizen Appellants

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor US Citizen Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Viability of Lagos or Benin City as Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Whether appellants face persecution under ss.96 or 97 IRPA in proposed IFAs
  3. 3 Credibility of appellants' testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirms the RPD: the appellants failed to discharge the burden to show a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life/torture under ss.96/97 in Lagos or Benin City and have not shown relocation would be objectively unreasonable; therefore Lagos and Benin City are viable IFAs and the appeals are dismissed, confirming the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated June 14, 2019 confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA.