TB9-15565

TB9-15565

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to meet the s.110(4) threshold for new evidence and failed to discharge the burden of showing, on a balance of probabilities, that the RPD erred: the RPD correctly identified that Port Harcourt, Abuja and Calabar are viable IFAs as there is no serious possibility of persecution in those locations and relocation would not be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in the appellants' circumstances.

Citation
TB9-15565
Parties
Principal Appellant (designated Representative): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse/appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Reviewing Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, New Evidence Admissibility S.110(4) IRPA, Subjective Fear, Burden of Proof, Gender Considerations
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative New Evidence Admissibility S.110(4) IRPA Subjective Fear Burden of Proof +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant (designated Representative)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse/appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Reviewing Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence A-K meets s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port Harcourt, Abuja or Calabar under the Rasaratnam two-prong test
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in its subjective fear analysis and whether failure to claim in the United States undermines credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to meet the s.110(4) threshold for new evidence and failed to discharge the burden of showing, on a balance of probabilities, that the RPD erred: the RPD correctly identified that Port Harcourt, Abuja and Calabar are viable IFAs as there is no serious possibility of persecution in those locations and relocation would not be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in the appellants' circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated May 6, 2019 confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • All proffered new evidence A-K rejected as not meeting s.110(4) IRPA requirements; no new evidence admitted