MB9-09856

MB9-09856

The RAD found that, on balance, Mrs. XXXX faces a serious possibility of persecution in the identified IFAs because her business conducted via social media combined with the size and dispersion of the husband’s family makes it probable they could locate and persecute her; accordingly the RAD set aside the RPD decision and recognized her as a Convention refugee under s.111(1)(b) IRPA. By contrast, the RAD found insufficient evidence that Mr. XXXX or the Minor Appellant face a serious possibility of persecution in the IFAs and that relocation to Ibadan or Port Harcourt would be reasonable for them, and therefore confirmed the RPD decision dismissing their claims under s.111(1)(a) IRPA....

Citation
MB9-09856
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: RAD sets aside RPD determination for Principal Appellant and substitutes a positive finding of Convention refugee; appeals of Associate Appellant and Minor Appellant dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Female Genital Mutilation/circumcision, Convention Refugee Status, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Female Genital Mutilation/circumcision Convention Refugee Status Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Assessment

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether internal flight alternative (IFA) is reasonable for each appellant
  2. 2 Whether agents of persecution could locate the appellants in proposed IFAs
  3. 3 Admissibility of new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found that, on balance, Mrs. XXXX faces a serious possibility of persecution in the identified IFAs because her business conducted via social media combined with the size and dispersion of the husband’s family makes it probable they could locate and persecute her; accordingly the RAD set aside the RPD decision and recognized her as a Convention refugee under s.111(1)(b) IRPA. By contrast, the RAD found insufficient evidence that Mr. XXXX or the Minor Appellant face a serious possibility of persecution in the IFAs and that relocation to Ibadan or Port Harcourt would be reasonable for them, and therefore confirmed the RPD decision dismissing their claims under s.111(1)(a) IRPA....

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: RAD sets aside RPD determination for Principal Appellant and substitutes a positive finding of Convention refugee; appeals of Associate Appellant and Minor Appellant dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA, the RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes its own determination that Mrs. XXXX is a Convention refugee.
  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA, the RAD dismisses the appeals of Mr. XXXX and the Minor Appellant and confirms the RPD decision that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.