TB6-10625

TB6-10625

On the record the RAD found no serious possibility of persecution for the Principal Appellant in Abuja or Port Harcourt and that relocation there would not be unreasonable given his education, language and work history; for the Secondary Appellant the evidence established discrimination and extortion but not persecution. Applying the correctness standard to RPD findings, the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal.

Citation
TB6-10625
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Secondary Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (decision on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Gender Based Persecution, Standard of Review, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Gender Based Persecution Standard of Review Burden of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (decision on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant has a viable and accessible internal flight alternative (IFA) in Nigeria (Abuja or Port Harcourt)
  2. 2 Whether the Secondary Appellant faces persecution in Chad or only discrimination/extortion
  3. 3 Whether credibility findings affected outcome

Ratio Decidendi

On the record the RAD found no serious possibility of persecution for the Principal Appellant in Abuja or Port Harcourt and that relocation there would not be unreasonable given his education, language and work history; for the Secondary Appellant the evidence established discrimination and extortion but not persecution. Applying the correctness standard to RPD findings, the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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