TB9-21859

TB9-21859

RAD conducted an independent review, found RPD’s reasons deficient on IFA analysis but on the merits concluded appellants failed to discharge their onus on both prongs of the IFA test: (1) insufficient credible evidence that agents of persecution (Fulani Herdsmen, named individual, or political opponents) had the means and interest to locate and harm appellants in the urban IFAs; (2) relocation would not be objectively unreasonable given appellants' education, language, availability of services and support; new evidence was inadmissible and oral hearing unnecessary; therefore appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a s.97 risk and appeal was...

Citation
TB9-21859
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX); First Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX); Third Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Fourth Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision on Appeal — Reasons and Decision; Appeal Dismissed and RPD Decision Confirmed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)), Rule 29 Applications, Oral Hearing (s.110(6)), Gender Based Persecution, Child Refugee Considerations, Compelling Reasons Exception
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)) Rule 29 Applications Oral Hearing (s.110(6)) +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

First Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Second Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Third Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX

Fourth Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision on Appeal — Reasons and Decision; Appeal Dismissed and RPD Decision Confirmed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence on appeal admissible under s.110(4) and Rule 29
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing at the RAD was required under s.110(6)
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in credibility and implausibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

RAD conducted an independent review, found RPD’s reasons deficient on IFA analysis but on the merits concluded appellants failed to discharge their onus on both prongs of the IFA test: (1) insufficient credible evidence that agents of persecution (Fulani Herdsmen, named individual, or political opponents) had the means and interest to locate and harm appellants in the urban IFAs; (2) relocation would not be objectively unreasonable given appellants' education, language, availability of services and support; new evidence was inadmissible and oral hearing unnecessary; therefore appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a s.97 risk and appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • New evidence submitted on appeal and under Rule 29 rejected as inadmissible or not sufficiently probative