TC0-04663

TC0-04663

Proposed new evidence was inadmissible under IRPA s.110(4); appellants failed to credibly establish on a balance of probabilities that the anonymous calls were made by their agents of persecution or that those agents have the means and motivation to locate them in Port Harcourt; appellants therefore failed to rebut the RPD's finding that Port Harcourt is a viable and objectively reasonable IFA; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
TC0-04663
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Convention Refugee Determination 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether Port Harcourt is a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
  3. 3 Whether anonymous threatening calls in Lagos were made by agents of persecution (Fulani Herdsmen)

Ratio Decidendi

Proposed new evidence was inadmissible under IRPA s.110(4); appellants failed to credibly establish on a balance of probabilities that the anonymous calls were made by their agents of persecution or that those agents have the means and motivation to locate them in Port Harcourt; appellants therefore failed to rebut the RPD's finding that Port Harcourt is a viable and objectively reasonable IFA; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed