MC0-09091

MC0-09091

On independent assessment the RPD was correct that Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative; appellants failed to meet the burden to show the agent of persecution could, on the balance of probabilities, locate or persecute them there and did not establish section 97 risks or that relocation would be unreasonable; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MC0-09091
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Minor Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Male Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal Decision (rad Reasons)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness, Gender Based Persecution, Female Genital Mutilation, Burden of Proof, Adequacy of Reasons
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness Gender Based Persecution Female Genital Mutilation +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Minor Appellants

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal Decision (rad Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Whether RPD breached procedural fairness by not allowing responses to issues raised after hearing
  3. 3 Whether RPD gave adequate reasons

Ratio Decidendi

On independent assessment the RPD was correct that Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative; appellants failed to meet the burden to show the agent of persecution could, on the balance of probabilities, locate or persecute them there and did not establish section 97 risks or that relocation would be unreasonable; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Confirm decision of RPD that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA