MB9-00258

MB9-00258

The RAD applied the correctness standard, found no admissible new evidence to warrant an oral hearing, and independently concluded that the RPD correctly determined Port Harcourt to be a viable Internal Flight Alternative under both prongs of the Rasaratnam test; appellants failed to rebut the IFA or demonstrate that relocation would jeopardize their life or safety, therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection was confirmed.

Citation
MB9-00258
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review, Gender Related Persecution, Child Refugee Claims, Oral Hearing Request, Evidentiary Corroboration, Jurisprudential Guide Application
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Standard of Review Gender Related Persecution Child Refugee Claims Oral Hearing Request +2 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 7 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What standard of review applies to RAD on RPD findings (correctness vs reasonableness)
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing on appeal must be held absent new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether Port Harcourt constitutes a viable Internal Flight Alternative under the two-pronged Rasaratnam test

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD applied the correctness standard, found no admissible new evidence to warrant an oral hearing, and independently concluded that the RPD correctly determined Port Harcourt to be a viable Internal Flight Alternative under both prongs of the Rasaratnam test; appellants failed to rebut the IFA or demonstrate that relocation would jeopardize their life or safety, therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated November 29, 2018 confirmed
  • Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to subparagraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act