TB9-14268

TB9-14268

The appeal is dismissed because, on a balance of probabilities, Benin City constitutes a viable internal flight alternative for the appellants; one newly‑submitted affidavit was admitted but did not undermine the availability or reasonableness of the IFA and was insufficient to justify an oral hearing, therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection and finding appellants neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-14268
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal: Gabriella B Utreras Sandoval; Nicholas Woodward; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Judicial Decision on Appeal and Reasons (refugee Appeal Division Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Non‑state Actor Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Admissibility of New Evidence Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Gabriella B Utreras Sandoval; Nicholas Woodward

Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Judicial Decision on Appeal and Reasons (refugee Appeal Division Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and assessment using Raza/Singh factors
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) is available (Port Harcourt or Benin City)
  3. 3 Whether oral hearing should be granted under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because, on a balance of probabilities, Benin City constitutes a viable internal flight alternative for the appellants; one newly‑submitted affidavit was admitted but did not undermine the availability or reasonableness of the IFA and was insufficient to justify an oral hearing, therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection and finding appellants neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Confirm decision of the Refugee Protection Division that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Admit affidavit of XXXX XXXX under s.110(4) IRPA; reject other submitted news articles and statutory declaration as not meeting s.110(4) requirements