TB9-10854

TB9-10854

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to meet the burden to show that relocation to Port Harcourt would expose the principal appellant to a serious possibility of persecution and the new evidence did not meet the statutory test for admission under s.110(4) IRPA; accordingly the IFA is viable and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB9-10854
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision on Appeal; RAD Review and Disposition Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal, Standard of Review, Gender Based Claims Guidance, Burden of Proof, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal Standard of Review Gender Based Claims Guidance +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision on Appeal; RAD Review and Disposition Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD correctly found a viable internal flight alternative in Port Harcourt for the principal appellant
  2. 2 Whether the new evidence submitted on appeal met the statutory test for admission (s.110(4) IRPA)
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to meet the burden to show that relocation to Port Harcourt would expose the principal appellant to a serious possibility of persecution and the new evidence did not meet the statutory test for admission under s.110(4) IRPA; accordingly the IFA is viable and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
  • Appeal dismissed