VB9-06106

VB9-06106

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the Appellants failed to prove Convention refugee or section 97(1) protection claims because their allegations reflect a personal vendetta and generalized risks without nexus to Convention grounds; most proffered new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) and Raza; the Associate Appellant is a Ghanaian citizen and Ghana provides protection including medical treatment, so she (and by extension the family) do not face the required risks; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
VB9-06106
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
New Evidence Under Section 110(4) IRPA, Internal Flight Alternative, Citizenship by Descent (ghana), Nexus to Convention Grounds, Risk Under Section 97(1) IRPA, Convention Against Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law New Evidence Under Section 110(4) IRPA Internal Flight Alternative Citizenship by Descent (ghana) Nexus to Convention Grounds Risk Under Section 97(1) IRPA +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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether proffered new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and Raza factors for admission
  3. 3 Whether Associate Appellant is a Ghanaian citizen by descent and therefore enjoys state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the Appellants failed to prove Convention refugee or section 97(1) protection claims because their allegations reflect a personal vendetta and generalized risks without nexus to Convention grounds; most proffered new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) and Raza; the Associate Appellant is a Ghanaian citizen and Ghana provides protection including medical treatment, so she (and by extension the family) do not face the required risks; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed under section 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Admitted into the record: Edmonton medical assessment and certain Government of Canada travel advisories for Nigeria and Ghana deemed to meet s.110(4)/Raza where indicated