2019 RLLR 1

2019 RLLR 1

The panel held that although Port Harcourt would not generally pose a serious possibility of persecution or s.97 harm for the male claimant, when assessed in the family’s personal circumstances (including the female claimant’s HIV status and its effects on employment, accommodation and access to healthcare) relocation to Port Harcourt would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh; the female claimant, as a woman living with HIV, faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Nigeria and has rebutted the presumption of state protection, so there is no viable IFA for her; accordingly the panel accepted the claims and granted refugee protection.

Citation
2019 RLLR 1
Parties
Claimant (designated Representative for Minors): Male claimant; Claimant: Female claimant; Minor Claimants: Minor claimants
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 & 97) / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims accepted; refugee protection granted
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Particular Social Group, Persecution Based on HIV, State Protection, Gender Related Persecution, Reasonableness of IFA
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative Particular Social Group Persecution Based on HIV State Protection Gender Related Persecution +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Male claimant

Claimant (designated Representative for Minors)

Female claimant

Claimant

Minor claimants

Minor Claimants

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 & 97) / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the male claimant faces a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture in the proposed IFA
  3. 3 Whether the proposed IFA would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh given the family’s personal circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The panel held that although Port Harcourt would not generally pose a serious possibility of persecution or s.97 harm for the male claimant, when assessed in the family’s personal circumstances (including the female claimant’s HIV status and its effects on employment, accommodation and access to healthcare) relocation to Port Harcourt would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh; the female claimant, as a woman living with HIV, faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Nigeria and has rebutted the presumption of state protection, so there is no viable IFA for her; accordingly the panel accepted the claims and granted refugee protection.

Court Disposition

Claims accepted; refugee protection granted

Orders

  • Accept the refugee protection claims of the male claimant, female claimant and minor claimants