TB9-03241

TB9-03241

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the Appellants failed to discharge the burden of proving on the relevant standards that there was no reasonable internal flight alternative in Port Harcourt and failed to show new credible evidence that undermined the RPD decision; generalized violence evidence was insufficiently linked to a Convention ground and did not make relocation unreasonable, therefore the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection was confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-03241
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (wife): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal RAD Reasons and Dismissal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA paragraph 111(1)(a).
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Female Genital Mutilation, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Admissibility of New Evidence Female Genital Mutilation Convention Refugee +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (wife)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal RAD Reasons and Dismissal Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Appellants qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether Appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the Appellants failed to discharge the burden of proving on the relevant standards that there was no reasonable internal flight alternative in Port Harcourt and failed to show new credible evidence that undermined the RPD decision; generalized violence evidence was insufficiently linked to a Convention ground and did not make relocation unreasonable, therefore the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection was confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • No oral hearing ordered under s.110(6) IRPA