TC0-10670

TC0-10670

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the proposed internal flight alternative (Abuja) was unreasonable or that agents of persecution could locate and persecute them there; additionally, the documentary items were inadmissible as new evidence under IRPA s.110(4) because they could and should have been submitted before the RPD decision.

Citation
TC0-10670
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellants: XXXX XXXX et al.
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal Reasons for Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Admission of New Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Admission of New Evidence +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX et al.

Minor Appellants

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal Reasons for Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal under IRPA s.110(4) and related jurisprudence
  2. 2 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in finding Abuja (and Port Harcourt) a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  3. 3 Whether the Associate Appellant's uncle and associates have the means and motivation to locate and persecute the family in the proposed IFA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the proposed internal flight alternative (Abuja) was unreasonable or that agents of persecution could locate and persecute them there; additionally, the documentary items were inadmissible as new evidence under IRPA s.110(4) because they could and should have been submitted before the RPD decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • New evidence (Olika Reporters article, police invitation, Associate Appellant letter) not admitted under IRPA s.110(4)
  • No oral hearing convened (no new evidence admitted)