TB9-08160

TB9-08160

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to adduce admissible new evidence, did not establish on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution in the identified IFA cities, and failed to demonstrate that relocation to those cities would be unreasonable in their circumstances; the viable IFA determination is dispositive and supports dismissal under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-08160
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minors: XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Immigration; Decision Maker: Refugee Appeal Division / G. Erauw
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of RPD confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Natural Justice
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Admissibility of New Evidence Natural Justice

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

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minors

Minister of Immigration

Respondent Minister

Refugee Appeal Division / G. Erauw

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Benin City, Enugu, Onitsha, or Abuja

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to adduce admissible new evidence, did not establish on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution in the identified IFA cities, and failed to demonstrate that relocation to those cities would be unreasonable in their circumstances; the viable IFA determination is dispositive and supports dismissal under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of RPD confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees or 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
  • Document submitted as new evidence rejected as inadmissible under subsection 110(4) IRPA and RAD Rules