TB9-19688

TB9-19688

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants failed to meet the burden to show, on a balance of probabilities, that Ibadan was not a viable internal flight alternative: they failed the first prong by not proving a serious possibility of persecution there or that the mother/family could locate or harm them in Ibadan, and they failed the second prong because relocation to Ibadan would not be unduly harsh; many documents tendered on appeal were excluded for lack of credibility or because they were fraudulent, and the RPD's IFA analysis was correct, so the RPD decision is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-19688
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Admissibility of New Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Bias Allegation, Convention Refugee Determination, Section 96 and 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Admissibility of New Evidence +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellants

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether risk of FGM was addressed by the RPD
  2. 2 Whether Ibadan is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  3. 3 Whether there was a serious possibility of persecution in Ibadan

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants failed to meet the burden to show, on a balance of probabilities, that Ibadan was not a viable internal flight alternative: they failed the first prong by not proving a serious possibility of persecution there or that the mother/family could locate or harm them in Ibadan, and they failed the second prong because relocation to Ibadan would not be unduly harsh; many documents tendered on appeal were excluded for lack of credibility or because they were fraudulent, and the RPD's IFA analysis was correct, so the RPD decision is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Request for an oral hearing denied