TC0-06500

TC0-06500

Although the RPD correctly found no serious possibility of persecution in Port Harcourt or Abuja (first Rasaratnam prong), the RAD found the second prong failed on the Appellants' updated facts: the Principal Appellant is now a separated single mother of two, and objective evidence about employment, housing, security and the new materials show it would be unreasonable and unduly harsh for her and her children to relocate to the proposed IFAs; therefore the RPD determination was set aside and the Appellants were found to be Convention refugees.

Citation
TC0-06500
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division — Decision Rendered
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Human Rights Child Protection Internal Flight Alternative Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division — Decision Rendered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD should admit post‑RPD new evidence
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing is required under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists to Port Harcourt or Abuja

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RPD correctly found no serious possibility of persecution in Port Harcourt or Abuja (first Rasaratnam prong), the RAD found the second prong failed on the Appellants' updated facts: the Principal Appellant is now a separated single mother of two, and objective evidence about employment, housing, security and the new materials show it would be unreasonable and unduly harsh for her and her children to relocate to the proposed IFAs; therefore the RPD determination was set aside and the Appellants were found to be Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division set aside pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA
  • Refugee Appeal Division determines the Appellants are Convention refugees