MB9-24277

MB9-24277

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because appellants failed to discharge the burden on a balance of probabilities that they would face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA (Port Harcourt), new documentary evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA criteria and was therefore inadmissible, and identified inconsistencies and lack of objective evidence undermined credibility; consequently relocation to Port Harcourt was not unduly harsh or unreasonable and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB9-24277
Parties
Principal Appellant (designated Representative): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Female Genital Mutilation, Bias and Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Female Genital Mutilation Bias and Procedural Fairness +1 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant (designated Representative)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Port Harcourt or Benin City
  2. 2 Whether appellants met burden to show serious possibility of persecution or risk to life in proposed IFAs
  3. 3 Whether new documentary evidence qualifies as new under subsection 110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because appellants failed to discharge the burden on a balance of probabilities that they would face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA (Port Harcourt), new documentary evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA criteria and was therefore inadmissible, and identified inconsistencies and lack of objective evidence undermined credibility; consequently relocation to Port Harcourt was not unduly harsh or unreasonable and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a)
  • RPD decision dated September 26, 2019 confirmed in full