MB9-07933

MB9-07933

The appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they face a section 96 or 97 risk in Port Harcourt, Aba or Abuja and failed to show relocation to Port Harcourt or Aba would be objectively unreasonable; Port Harcourt and Aba are viable internal flight alternatives and the RPD decision is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-07933
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Female Genital Mutilation, Admissibility of New Evidence, Rule 29, Judicial Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Female Genital Mutilation Admissibility of New 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Male Appellant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants have a viable internal flight alternative (Abuja, Port Harcourt or Aba)
  2. 2 Whether RPD erred in credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and Rule 29 admissibility tests

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they face a section 96 or 97 risk in Port Harcourt, Aba or Abuja and failed to show relocation to Port Harcourt or Aba would be objectively unreasonable; Port Harcourt and Aba are viable internal flight alternatives and the RPD decision is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • New evidence admitted: affidavits relating to events after RPD decision, amended Schedule A and documents corroborating residence in Abuja