MB9-13268

MB9-13268

The appellants failed to meet their onus to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed internal flight alternatives and failed to show the IFAs are objectively unreasonable; the corroborating affidavits and documents were inconsistent and of low weight, and the RPD hearing was not procedurally unfair, therefore the RPD's decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Citation
MB9-13268
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal of Refugee Protection Division Decision / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Credibility and Weight of Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Gender Based Violence Internal Flight Alternative Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Credibility and Weight of Evidence +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal of Refugee Protection Division Decision / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed internal flight alternatives (Ibadan and Benin City) are viable
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious possibility of persecution by the husband's family for refusing FGM
  3. 3 Whether the RPD properly assessed credibility and weight of affidavits and corroborating documents

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to meet their onus to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed internal flight alternatives and failed to show the IFAs are objectively unreasonable; the corroborating affidavits and documents were inconsistent and of low weight, and the RPD hearing was not procedurally unfair, therefore the RPD's decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA the RPD decision dated May 8, 2019 is confirmed: the Appellants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA