TC0-02793

TC0-02793

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the appellants failed to discharge the burden to rebut named IFAs; Port Harcourt and Benin City are viable IFAs and not objectively unreasonable in the appellants' circumstances; the proffered new evidence was inadmissible for timing and credibility reasons; appeal dismissed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TC0-02793
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (reasons for Decision) Issued January 8, 2021
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Credibility and Plausibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, National Documentation Package (ndp)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Credibility and Plausibility Admissibility of New Evidence Convention Refugee Determination +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (reasons for Decision) Issued January 8, 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility and credibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rules
  2. 2 Whether the RPD applied the correct legal test for Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
  3. 3 Whether the RPD's finding that Port Harcourt and Benin City are viable and reasonable IFAs was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the appellants failed to discharge the burden to rebut named IFAs; Port Harcourt and Benin City are viable IFAs and not objectively unreasonable in the appellants' circumstances; the proffered new evidence was inadmissible for timing and credibility reasons; appeal dismissed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.