MC0-06419

MC0-06419

The RPD erred by failing to consider the appellants' primary caregiving role for a disabled daughter whose needs make relocation unduly harsh; on the balance of probabilities agents of persecution could not be shown to be able to locate them in Port Harcourt but, even if they could not, requiring relocation without the daughter would be objectively unreasonable, and therefore the appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
MC0-06419
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside; appellants found to be Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, State Protection, Particular Social Group, Best Interests of the Child, Disability and Caregiving, Female Genital Mutilation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee State Protection Particular Social Group Best Interests of the Child +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Port Harcourt is a reasonable internal flight alternative for the appellants given their caregiving duties and the daughter's disability
  2. 2 Whether the appellants face persecution from members of the Principal Appellant's extended family
  3. 3 Whether the appellants can obtain state protection in Nigeria

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred by failing to consider the appellants' primary caregiving role for a disabled daughter whose needs make relocation unduly harsh; on the balance of probabilities agents of persecution could not be shown to be able to locate them in Port Harcourt but, even if they could not, requiring relocation without the daughter would be objectively unreasonable, and therefore the appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside; appellants found to be Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal and set aside the Refugee Protection Division decision.
  • Substitute a decision that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.