TB7-23655

TB7-23655

The RAD found, on a balance of probabilities, that an internal flight alternative exists in Abuja or Port Harcourt because the risk to the appellants was localized to specific individuals without evidence of national reach or state-wide police interest, and relocating would not impose the high threshold of great physical danger or undue hardship; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-23655
Parties
Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Convention Refugee Status, Standard of Review, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Convention Refugee Status Standard of Review Risk Assessment

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Abuja or Port Harcourt
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus to a Convention ground (gender/family)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found, on a balance of probabilities, that an internal flight alternative exists in Abuja or Port Harcourt because the risk to the appellants was localized to specific individuals without evidence of national reach or state-wide police interest, and relocating would not impose the high threshold of great physical danger or undue hardship; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • No oral hearing granted