MB8-27355

MB8-27355

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD's IFA finding failed the second Rasaratnam prong: relocation to Abuja or Calabar would be unreasonable in all the circumstances given the Principal Appellant's ongoing psychological injury, lack of familial and spousal support after her husband remained in Canada, economic and housing obstacles for a female‑headed household, and ineffective state protection; accordingly the RAD substituted a finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
MB8-27355
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision (appeal From Refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its determination that Appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Gender Based Persecution, FGM, Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Admissibility of New Evidence Gender Based Persecution FGM +1 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision (appeal From Refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Calabar or Abuja
  2. 2 Whether state protection is available and effective
  3. 3 Whether post‑perfection new evidence should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD's IFA finding failed the second Rasaratnam prong: relocation to Abuja or Calabar would be unreasonable in all the circumstances given the Principal Appellant's ongoing psychological injury, lack of familial and spousal support after her husband remained in Canada, economic and housing obstacles for a female‑headed household, and ineffective state protection; accordingly the RAD substituted a finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its determination that Appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division decision dated November 20, 2018 and substitute a determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Admit the post‑perfection new evidence listed in the record under s.110(4) IRPA for the purposes of this appeal