MB8-19264

MB8-19264

The RAD independently reviewed the record and concluded the RPD did not err: the RPD lawfully proceeded to IFA, respected procedural fairness including gender guidance, and correctly applied the Thirunavukkarasu two‑prong test to find no serious possibility of persecution in Lagos (and Ibadan) and that relocation there would not be unreasonable; accordingly the RPD decision rejecting the refugee claims for existence of an IFA is confirmed.

Citation
MB8-19264
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Daughter: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Son: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Son: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Niece (legally Adopted): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal of RPD Decision / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision (final)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness, Gender Based Persecution, Female Genital Mutilation, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness Gender Based Persecution Female Genital Mutilation 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Daughter

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Son

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Son

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Niece (legally Adopted)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal of RPD Decision / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was it an error for the RPD to proceed directly to an internal flight alternative (IFA) analysis?
  2. 2 Did the RPD breach procedural fairness by failing to consider confidential Exhibit No.5 and the IRB Gender Guideline?
  3. 3 Did a viable IFA (Lagos or Ibadan) exist under the two‑pronged Thirunavukkarasu test?

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD independently reviewed the record and concluded the RPD did not err: the RPD lawfully proceeded to IFA, respected procedural fairness including gender guidance, and correctly applied the Thirunavukkarasu two‑prong test to find no serious possibility of persecution in Lagos (and Ibadan) and that relocation there would not be unreasonable; accordingly the RPD decision rejecting the refugee claims for existence of an IFA is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act