TC0-08543

TC0-08543

On an independent assessment the RAD found the RPD correctly determined Port Harcourt is a viable IFA: applicants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that agents of persecution have the means to locate them there and failed to show relocation would be objectively unreasonable given their personal circumstances; new evidence was either inadmissible or not determinative; appeal is dismissed and RPD decision is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TC0-08543
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Male Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Reasons and Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Indigeneship, Impact of COVID 19 on Relocation, Oral Hearing Request, Section 97 IRPA Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Indigeneship +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Reasons and Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Admissibility of new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA and Rule 29 RAD Rules
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing was required

Ratio Decidendi

On an independent assessment the RAD found the RPD correctly determined Port Harcourt is a viable IFA: applicants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that agents of persecution have the means to locate them there and failed to show relocation would be objectively unreasonable given their personal circumstances; new evidence was either inadmissible or not determinative; appeal is dismissed and RPD decision is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA