TB9-35522

TB9-35522

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the appellants failed to rebut, on a balance of probabilities, that Port Harcourt is a realistic and safe internal flight alternative: the evidence does not show a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life/torture in Port Harcourt and relocation would not be unreasonable given the appellants' circumstances; most new evidence was admitted but either lacked credibility (notably the email/affidavit from the brother‑in‑law) or did not undermine the IFA finding.

Citation
TB9-35522
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (mother‑in‑law): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (twin Daughter 1): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (twin Daughter 2): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Final Disposition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admission of New and Late Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Persons in Need of Protection, Covid‑19 Impact on Return
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admission of New and Late Evidence Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Persons in Need of Protection +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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (mother‑in‑law)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (son)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (twin Daughter 1)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (twin Daughter 2)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants have an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port Harcourt
  2. 2 Admissibility of new and late evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rule 29
  3. 3 Credibility of late/new evidence provided after RPD decision

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the appellants failed to rebut, on a balance of probabilities, that Port Harcourt is a realistic and safe internal flight alternative: the evidence does not show a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life/torture in Port Harcourt and relocation would not be unreasonable given the appellants' circumstances; most new evidence was admitted but either lacked credibility (notably the email/affidavit from the brother‑in‑law) or did not undermine the IFA finding.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act