TB7-21467

TB7-21467

The RAD dismissed the appeal because on balance of probabilities the Appellants failed to rebut the presumption of a viable internal flight alternative in Port Harcourt: credibility findings concerning the Male Appellant were reasonable, the key newspaper article lacked authenticity, the risk of forced female circumcision was not established and state protection/alternative remedies were available, and Port Harcourt would not be objectively unreasonable to relocate to.

Citation
TB7-21467
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) Under IRPA / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Rejection of Refugee Protection Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed: Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Female Genital Mutilation/forced Circumcision, State Protection, Convention Refugee Determination, IFA Unreasonable Branch
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Female Genital Mutilation/forced Circumcision State Protection +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) Under IRPA / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Rejection of Refugee Protection Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Port Harcourt
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants face a risk of forced female circumcision or other persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because on balance of probabilities the Appellants failed to rebut the presumption of a viable internal flight alternative in Port Harcourt: credibility findings concerning the Male Appellant were reasonable, the key newspaper article lacked authenticity, the risk of forced female circumcision was not established and state protection/alternative remedies were available, and Port Harcourt would not be objectively unreasonable to relocate to.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed: Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

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