TB8-33518

TB8-33518

The appeal is dismissed because, even accepting some errors (the application of Article 1E was unnecessary), the determinative legal ground is that Port Harcourt constitutes a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative for the appellants and the minor has not shown a serious possibility of persecution in the United States; accordingly the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
TB8-33518
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Immigration and Refugee Protection
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Determination on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Convention Refugee Status, Article 1 E Exclusion, Credibility Assessment, Best Interests of the Child, Jurisdiction of RAD, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Convention Refugee Status Article 1 E Exclusion Credibility Assessment 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate

Minister of Immigration and Refugee Protection

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Determination on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minor female appellant is excluded under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention due to US nationality
  2. 2 Whether the principal appellant is credible and has a subjective fear given her 18-month stay in the United States without claiming asylum
  3. 3 Whether Port Harcourt constitutes a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative for the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because, even accepting some errors (the application of Article 1E was unnecessary), the determinative legal ground is that Port Harcourt constitutes a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative for the appellants and the minor has not shown a serious possibility of persecution in the United States; accordingly the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated December 3, 2018 is confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection