TB6-10191

TB6-10191

Although the RPD erred in articulating and applying the IFA test, the RAD, applying the correct legal tests and conducting its own review of the entire record, found on a balance of probabilities that Port Harcourt is a viable IFA for the appellants (no serious possibility of persecution there and relocation would not be unduly harsh); accordingly the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-10191
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Standard of Review/correctness, Right to Fair Hearing, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Standard of Review/correctness Right to Fair Hearing Convention Refugee Determination

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (daughter)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD applied the correct IFA test
  2. 2 Whether the RPD ignored relevant evidence or drew unreasonable conclusions
  3. 3 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RPD erred in articulating and applying the IFA test, the RAD, applying the correct legal tests and conducting its own review of the entire record, found on a balance of probabilities that Port Harcourt is a viable IFA for the appellants (no serious possibility of persecution there and relocation would not be unduly harsh); accordingly the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act