MB8-18226

MB8-18226

RAD accepted some post‑decision mental‑health evidence as new and relevant but concluded appellants failed to prove persecutors could locate them in Abuja or Port Harcourt and failed both prongs of the IFA test; relocation would not be unreasonable given appellant's demonstrated resilience, education, employment history and available urban safeguards; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
MB8-18226
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent/minister: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) — Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), New Evidence Admissibility, Credibility Assessment, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Mental Health Impact on Relocation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) New Evidence Admissibility Credibility Assessment Female Genital Mutilation (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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister of Immigration

Respondent/minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) — Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents presented to RAD constituted admissible new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and Singh
  2. 2 Whether there exists an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Abuja or Port Harcourt for the appellants
  3. 3 Whether appellants demonstrated agents of persecution have the ability to locate them in proposed IFA locations

Ratio Decidendi

RAD accepted some post‑decision mental‑health evidence as new and relevant but concluded appellants failed to prove persecutors could locate them in Abuja or Port Harcourt and failed both prongs of the IFA test; relocation would not be unreasonable given appellant's demonstrated resilience, education, employment history and available urban safeguards; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act