MB9-11112

MB9-11112

The new evidence was not admissible because it was reasonably available before the RPD decision; no new evidence was admitted so no oral hearing was required; on the merits the appellants failed to rebut the RPD finding that Port Harcourt is a viable IFA — on the balance of probabilities the agents of persecution could not locate them there and Port Harcourt is objectively reasonable under the relevant factors — therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-11112
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed — appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Discretion, Credibility Assessment, Jurisprudential Guide Application
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Discretion Credibility Assessment +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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence met the statutory threshold in IRPA s.110(4) and was admissible
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing was required under IRPA s.110(6)
  3. 3 Whether Port Harcourt constituted a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) (safety and objective reasonableness)

Ratio Decidendi

The new evidence was not admissible because it was reasonably available before the RPD decision; no new evidence was admitted so no oral hearing was required; on the merits the appellants failed to rebut the RPD finding that Port Harcourt is a viable IFA — on the balance of probabilities the agents of persecution could not locate them there and Port Harcourt is objectively reasonable under the relevant factors — therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed — appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • New evidence (affidavit, hospital letter, police crime diary extract) not admitted as it was reasonably available prior to the RPD decision