MC0-00523

MC0-00523

The appeal is allowed in part because the IFA was unreasonable: the Principal Appellant requires ongoing mental health services and employment capacity that are not realistically available in Benin City or Port Harcourt, making relocation unsafe and unreasonable; on that basis the Nigerian Appellants meet the Convention refugee test. The youngest daughter born in the United States was not shown to face a risk under the IRPA, so the appeal is dismissed as to her.

Citation
MC0-00523
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Eldest Daughter / Co‑appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Youngest Daughter (american Appellant): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: Nigerian Appellants found to be Convention refugees; appeal dismissed for the American Appellant.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Persecution on Account of Religion, Credibility Assessment, Access to Mental Health Services
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Persecution on Account of Religion +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Eldest Daughter / Co‑appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Youngest Daughter (american Appellant)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Benin City or Port Harcourt was reasonable and viable
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants face a risk of persecution from extended family ritual practices including FGM
  3. 3 Whether the Principal Appellant's mental health needs make relocation unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed in part because the IFA was unreasonable: the Principal Appellant requires ongoing mental health services and employment capacity that are not realistically available in Benin City or Port Harcourt, making relocation unsafe and unreasonable; on that basis the Nigerian Appellants meet the Convention refugee test. The youngest daughter born in the United States was not shown to face a risk under the IRPA, so the appeal is dismissed as to her.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Nigerian Appellants found to be Convention refugees; appeal dismissed for the American Appellant.

Orders

  • Substitute decision: the Nigerian Appellants are Convention refugees
  • Dismiss the appeal of the American Appellant and confirm the RPD decision that she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection