TB7-00229

TB7-00229

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate US state protection for the minor and failed to demonstrate that relocation to Lagos would be unreasonable or that there was a serious possibility of persecution there; objective documentary evidence outweighed vague testimony, so the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-00229
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal on Record; No New Evidence Submitted; RAD Decision on Appeal (no Hearing Requested)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility and Identity, Exclusion (article 1 F(b)), Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Credibility and Identity Exclusion (article 1 F(b)) 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

Respondent Minister

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal on Record; No New Evidence Submitted; RAD Decision on Appeal (no Hearing Requested)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Lagos
  2. 2 Whether the minor appellant rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection in the United States
  3. 3 Whether the RPD improperly assessed credibility and relied on irrelevant considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate US state protection for the minor and failed to demonstrate that relocation to Lagos would be unreasonable or that there was a serious possibility of persecution there; objective documentary evidence outweighed vague testimony, so the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • RAD confirms the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
  • Appeal dismissed.