TB9-03505

TB9-03505

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because a viable, safe and reasonable IFA exists in Port Harcourt; new evidence was largely either not admissible under s.110(4) or failed credibility/newness/relevance tests; an oral hearing was not justified because IFA was determinative.

Citation
TB9-03505
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (determination by Rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)), Singh/raza Factors, Oral Hearing Test, Gender Based Persecution, Female Genital Mutilation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)) Singh/raza Factors Oral Hearing Test +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (determination by Rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether a viable, safe and reasonable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists in Port Harcourt
  3. 3 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) and Singh/Raza factors and should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because a viable, safe and reasonable IFA exists in Port Harcourt; new evidence was largely either not admissible under s.110(4) or failed credibility/newness/relevance tests; an oral hearing was not justified because IFA was determinative.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirming appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed