TB9-03073

TB9-03073

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on independent review, there was insufficient credible evidence that the Principal Appellant's father or villagers would have the means or motivation to locate the Appellants in Port Harcourt and Port Harcourt was, on the evidence and applicable jurisprudence, a reasonable internal flight alternative for the Appellants; therefore the RPD's conclusion that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection was confirmed.

Citation
TB9-03073
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Convention Refugee Designation, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Convention Refugee Designation Standard of Review

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD misapprehended the agent(s) of persecution and failed to consider relevant evidence
  2. 2 Whether the RPD based its internal flight alternative (IFA) findings on speculation without regard to evidence
  3. 3 Whether the RPD's credibility and IFA findings were unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on independent review, there was insufficient credible evidence that the Principal Appellant's father or villagers would have the means or motivation to locate the Appellants in Port Harcourt and Port Harcourt was, on the evidence and applicable jurisprudence, a reasonable internal flight alternative for the Appellants; therefore the RPD's conclusion that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated December 21, 2018 is confirmed