MB9-09277

MB9-09277

The RPD correctly concluded that viable Internal Flight Alternatives existed in Lagos or Abuja and the appellants failed to rebut both prongs of the IFA test; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor established need for protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB9-09277
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad Determination)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Credibility Assessment, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Non State Actors, Jurisprudential Guide on IFA, Audi Alteram Partem, Reasonableness Threshold for IFA (thirunavukkarasu)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Credibility Assessment Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) +4 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists in Lagos or Abuja
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to assess credibility/merits of the claim
  3. 3 Whether the RPD improperly relied on boilerplate reasoning or the Jurisprudential Guide

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD correctly concluded that viable Internal Flight Alternatives existed in Lagos or Abuja and the appellants failed to rebut both prongs of the IFA test; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor established need for protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the RPD confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act