TB7-13846

TB7-13846

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision: the Appellants have an IFA to Port Harcourt because there is no serious possibility of persecution there and relocation is not unreasonable given their profiles; the proffered documents are not new or reasonably unavailable and are inadmissible; credibility findings about inconsistencies in the Appellants' evidence regarding the persecutor's police rank and influence are upheld; psychological evidence does not render IFA unreasonable; s.97 protection not established on balance of probabilities; hence appeal dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-13846
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal — RAD Redetermination / Decision (re Determination)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Section 97/96 Analysis, Oral Hearing Under S.110
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Gender Based Violence Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Credibility +4 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal — RAD Redetermination / Decision (re Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a viable Internal Flight Alternative to Port Harcourt
  2. 2 Whether submitted documents constitute new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing is required under s.110(3) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision: the Appellants have an IFA to Port Harcourt because there is no serious possibility of persecution there and relocation is not unreasonable given their profiles; the proffered documents are not new or reasonably unavailable and are inadmissible; credibility findings about inconsistencies in the Appellants' evidence regarding the persecutor's police rank and influence are upheld; psychological evidence does not render IFA unreasonable; s.97 protection not established on balance of probabilities; hence appeal dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • New documentary evidence ruled inadmissible and no oral hearing granted under s.110(3) IRPA