TB9-18019

TB9-18019

The RAD confirms the RPD: the Appellants failed to discharge the burden to show that Port Harcourt or Ibadan are not viable internal flight alternatives; the Appellants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that the unknown agents (even if state‑affiliated) could or would locate them nationwide or that the police would collude; proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and was refused; appeal dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-18019
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (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
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Burden of Proof, State Actor Vs Non State Actor, Credibility Findings
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Burden of Proof State Actor Vs Non State Actor +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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants

Minister of Immigration

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed internal flight alternatives (Port Harcourt or Ibadan) are viable
  2. 2 Whether agents of persecution are state actors or unknown individuals
  3. 3 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA admissibility criteria

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD: the Appellants failed to discharge the burden to show that Port Harcourt or Ibadan are not viable internal flight alternatives; the Appellants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that the unknown agents (even if state‑affiliated) could or would locate them nationwide or that the police would collude; proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and was refused; appeal dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed