MB9-08948

MB9-08948

The RAD concluded the RPD correctly applied the law and facts: the Appellants failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that Boko Haram or other actors pose a section 96/97 risk in either Benin City or Port Harcourt, relocation to those IFA locations would not be unreasonable given the Appellants' circumstances, the two post‑decision news articles were admissible but did not alter the risk analysis, and the FGM evidence was inadmissible as it pre‑dated the RPD decision and was reasonably available; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-08948
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Female Genital Mutilation, Risk Assessment, Standard of Review, Oral Hearing Discretion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Female Genital Mutilation Risk Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Whether new evidence (two newspaper articles) and later submissions on FGM should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants face persecution or a section 96/97 risk in IFA locations (Benin City or Port Harcourt)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD correctly applied the law and facts: the Appellants failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that Boko Haram or other actors pose a section 96/97 risk in either Benin City or Port Harcourt, relocation to those IFA locations would not be unreasonable given the Appellants' circumstances, the two post‑decision news articles were admissible but did not alter the risk analysis, and the FGM evidence was inadmissible as it pre‑dated the RPD decision and was reasonably available; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA