TB6-09438

TB6-09438

On the balance of probabilities the RAD found the RPD correctly determined Port Harcourt was a viable internal flight alternative: country evidence and the record showed Boko Haram activity was concentrated in northeast Nigeria, there was no evidence of Boko Haram presence or capacity to find the Appellants in Port Harcourt, and Port Harcourt offers conditions that make it reasonable to live there; therefore the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
TB6-09438
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Spouse / Co‑appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review, Deference to Credibility Findings
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Standard of Review Deference to Credibility Findings

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Spouse / Co‑appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative (Port Harcourt)
  2. 2 Whether Appellants have established a well‑founded fear of persecution by Boko Haram
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of review and deference by the RAD to RPD findings of credibility and fact

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the RAD found the RPD correctly determined Port Harcourt was a viable internal flight alternative: country evidence and the record showed Boko Haram activity was concentrated in northeast Nigeria, there was no evidence of Boko Haram presence or capacity to find the Appellants in Port Harcourt, and Port Harcourt offers conditions that make it reasonable to live there; therefore the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed