TB8-09147

TB8-09147

The Panel found the divorce certificates fraudulent and rejected portions of new evidence but accepted recent medical evidence for the male children and country condition material on mental health; held that while the in‑laws could not locate the family in Port Harcourt, the male children would face a serious possibility of persecution from Nigerian society‑at‑large due to stigma and lack of services and that relocation would be objectively unreasonable because necessary therapeutic services and state protection are lacking; accordingly substituted its decision and allowed the appeals of the Principal Appellant and the two male AAs as Convention refugees and dismissed the female AA's appeal.

Citation
TB8-09147
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal — Redetermination Under RAD / Redetermination Decision on Appeal Following Federal Court Remittance
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: Principal Appellant and two male Associate Appellants accepted as Convention refugees; female Associate Appellant appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, New Evidence Admissibility, Credibility Findings, State Protection, Best Interests of the Child, Substitution of Decision
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative New Evidence Admissibility Credibility Findings State Protection Best Interests of the Child +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (male)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal — Redetermination Under RAD / Redetermination Decision on Appeal Following Federal Court Remittance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and is credible
  2. 2 Whether a safe and viable Internal Flight Alternative exists in Port Harcourt
  3. 3 Whether male child appellants face persecution from society-at-large due to disability

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel found the divorce certificates fraudulent and rejected portions of new evidence but accepted recent medical evidence for the male children and country condition material on mental health; held that while the in‑laws could not locate the family in Port Harcourt, the male children would face a serious possibility of persecution from Nigerian society‑at‑large due to stigma and lack of services and that relocation would be objectively unreasonable because necessary therapeutic services and state protection are lacking; accordingly substituted its decision and allowed the appeals of the Principal Appellant and the two male AAs as Convention refugees and dismissed the female AA's appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Principal Appellant and two male Associate Appellants accepted as Convention refugees; female Associate Appellant appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Substitute decision: Principal Appellant and the two male Associate Appellants are Convention refugees
  • Female Associate Appellant's appeal dismissed