VB9-03258

VB9-03258

On balance of probabilities the appellants failed to rebut that viable IFAs exist in Ibadan and Port Harcourt because (1) objective evidence of risk in those cities is lacking or dated, (2) appellants possess language, education and work capacity making relocation reasonable, and (3) any procedural error adding Benin City as an IFA was harmless because at least one viable IFA remained; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
VB9-03258
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Principal Appellant's Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (disposition)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, Convention Refugee Status, Natural Justice, Pith and Substance
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings Convention Refugee Status Natural Justice Pith and Substance

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant's Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellants

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants have a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Nigeria
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings and in applying Maldonado
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to address the pith and substance of the claim

Ratio Decidendi

On balance of probabilities the appellants failed to rebut that viable IFAs exist in Ibadan and Port Harcourt because (1) objective evidence of risk in those cities is lacking or dated, (2) appellants possess language, education and work capacity making relocation reasonable, and (3) any procedural error adding Benin City as an IFA was harmless because at least one viable IFA remained; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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