MC0-08531

MC0-08531

The appeal is dismissed because the Refugee Protection Division was correct that Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative: agents of persecution lack sufficient means to locate or target the Appellants there, accepted new and admissible country evidence does not demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution or s.97 risk, and relocation to Port Harcourt would not be objectively unreasonable given the family’s personal circumstances and prospects.

Citation
MC0-08531
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), New Evidence Admissibility (s.110(4) Irpa), Standard of Review, Rule 29 (rad), Chairperson's Guideline 4
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Gender Based Persecution Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) New Evidence Admissibility (s.110(4) Irpa) +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (male)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Whether revocation of Jurisprudential Guide TB7-19851 invalidates the RPD decision
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of new country evidence and Rule 29 requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Refugee Protection Division was correct that Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative: agents of persecution lack sufficient means to locate or target the Appellants there, accepted new and admissible country evidence does not demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution or s.97 risk, and relocation to Port Harcourt would not be objectively unreasonable given the family’s personal circumstances and prospects.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; the Refugee Protection Division decision dated March 13, 2020 is confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.