MC0-08637

MC0-08637

The RAD allowed the appeals and substituted its own decision granting protection because, after independent assessment, it found the RPD erred: while Abuja was a safe IFA (no evidence Badoo cult operational there or able to track appellants via social media and state protection generally unavailable against Badoo), relocation to Abuja would be objectively unreasonable for this family given the Principal Appellant's advanced age and limited future capacity to provide for dependent associates, likely employment barriers due to age and non-indigeneity, high youth unemployment and housing affordability concerns; many items of new evidence were excluded for failing s.110(4) but limited...

Citation
MC0-08637
Parties
Appellant Principal: Principal Appellant; Appellant Associate: Associate Appellant 1; Appellant Associate: Associate Appellant 2; Appellant Associate: Associate Appellant 3; Appellant Associate (minor): Associate Appellant 4
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Substitution of Decision Pursuant to IRPA S.111(1)(b)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the appellants are persons in need of protection pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b)
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admission of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Sur Place Claims (sexual Orientation, Cult Persecution), Indigeneity, Child Refugee Claimants
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative Admission of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Credibility Assessment State Protection +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant Principal

Associate Appellant 1

Appellant Associate

Associate Appellant 2

Appellant Associate

Associate Appellant 3

Appellant Associate

Associate Appellant 4

Appellant Associate (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Substitution of Decision Pursuant to IRPA S.111(1)(b)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence met the statutory test in s.110(4) IRPA and Rule 29
  2. 2 Whether Associate Appellants' sur place claims (sexual orientation; Eiye cult) were established
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeals and substituted its own decision granting protection because, after independent assessment, it found the RPD erred: while Abuja was a safe IFA (no evidence Badoo cult operational there or able to track appellants via social media and state protection generally unavailable against Badoo), relocation to Abuja would be objectively unreasonable for this family given the Principal Appellant's advanced age and limited future capacity to provide for dependent associates, likely employment barriers due to age and non-indigeneity, high youth unemployment and housing affordability concerns; many items of new evidence were excluded for failing s.110(4) but limited...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the appellants are persons in need of protection pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b)

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Decision substituted: Appellants declared persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the IRPA