MB9-02822

MB9-02822

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution in Port Harcourt and failed to show relocation would be objectively unreasonable; additionally the US-born minors did not rebut the presumption of state protection in the United States; no new evidence was filed to engage RAD rehearing jurisdiction, therefore the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-02822
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (nigerian Citizen): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (us Citizen): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Female Genital Mutilation, Refugee Status Determination, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Female Genital Mutilation Refugee Status Determination Standard of Review

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (nigerian Citizen)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (us Citizen)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants have a well-founded fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative exists (Port Harcourt)
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available for US-born minors

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution in Port Harcourt and failed to show relocation would be objectively unreasonable; additionally the US-born minors did not rebut the presumption of state protection in the United States; no new evidence was filed to engage RAD rehearing jurisdiction, therefore the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA