TB9-28154

TB9-28154

The RPD erred in concluding Port Harcourt was a reasonable IFA; while there was insufficient evidence to establish a serious possibility of persecution by Fulani herdsmen in Port Harcourt (first prong not met), Port Harcourt was nonetheless unreasonable as an IFA given significant barriers to relocation arising from the appellants' status as non‑indigenes (limits on access to employment, services and education) and the poor security situation in Rivers State; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and substituted a finding that the appellants are Convention refugees under s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-28154
Parties
Applicant Principal Appellant: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Applicant Associate Appellant: Associate Appellant (name redacted); Applicants Minors: Minor Appellants (names redacted); Respondent Minister: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal With Substituted Determination (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision of 3 October 2019 set aside; substituted determination that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 111(1)(b) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Indigeneity and Access to Services, Persecution by Non State Actors, Jurisdiction for Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Assessment Indigeneity and Access to Services +2 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Applicant Principal Appellant

Associate Appellant (name redacted)

Applicant Associate Appellant

Minor Appellants (names redacted)

Applicants Minors

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (respondent)

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal With Substituted Determination (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for appellants
  2. 2 Whether the five proffered news articles constitute admissible new evidence
  3. 3 Whether appellants face a serious possibility of persecution in Port Harcourt by Fulani herdsmen

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in concluding Port Harcourt was a reasonable IFA; while there was insufficient evidence to establish a serious possibility of persecution by Fulani herdsmen in Port Harcourt (first prong not met), Port Harcourt was nonetheless unreasonable as an IFA given significant barriers to relocation arising from the appellants' status as non‑indigenes (limits on access to employment, services and education) and the poor security situation in Rivers State; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and substituted a finding that the appellants are Convention refugees under s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision of 3 October 2019 set aside; substituted determination that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 111(1)(b) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • RPD decision dated 3 October 2019 set aside