TB8-28036

TB8-28036

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on independent review, Abuja was a viable internal flight alternative that was both safe and reasonable on a balance of probabilities; unsworn, paraphrased submissions by counsel lacked reliability and certain newly submitted medical documents and photographs were not credible or relevant under subsection 110(4) IRPA and Raza/Singh criteria, so the RPD decision denying refugee protection was confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-28036
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Credibility, Admission of New Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Credibility Admission of New Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD correctly applied the two‑prong IFA test (safety and reasonableness)
  2. 2 Whether new evidence and unsworn submissions could be considered under subsection 110(4) IRPA and RAD rules
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence provided corroborated persecution allegations

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on independent review, Abuja was a viable internal flight alternative that was both safe and reasonable on a balance of probabilities; unsworn, paraphrased submissions by counsel lacked reliability and certain newly submitted medical documents and photographs were not credible or relevant under subsection 110(4) IRPA and Raza/Singh criteria, so the RPD decision denying refugee protection was confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act