TB9-07404

TB9-07404

The RAD refuses admission of the post‑decision legal opinion as not meeting s.110(4) IRPA, declines to convene an oral hearing, and on independent review finds the RPD's conclusion correct that the appellants have not established s.96 or s.97 risks in Lagos and that relocation to Lagos is not unreasonable; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed under para.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-07404
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal – Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Reasonableness of Relocation, Psychological/medical Evidence, Indigeneity
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Reasonableness of Relocation +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal – Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of post‑decision legal opinion under subsection 110(4) IRPA and entitlement to an oral hearing under s.110(6)
  2. 2 Whether RPD erred in using failure to claim in the United States as a credibility finding
  3. 3 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Lagos (s.96/s.97 risk assessment)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD refuses admission of the post‑decision legal opinion as not meeting s.110(4) IRPA, declines to convene an oral hearing, and on independent review finds the RPD's conclusion correct that the appellants have not established s.96 or s.97 risks in Lagos and that relocation to Lagos is not unreasonable; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed under para.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appellants' new legal opinion (March 29, 2019) not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA
  • No oral hearing convened (s.110(6) IRPA)