TB8-33341

TB8-33341

The RAD concluded that Mrs. A’s reavailment trips were not egregious or indicative of a lack of subjective fear given the context (visits to recover and valid visas), that the husband has the motivation and means (property interests, government employment and connections, prior ability to locate her) to find her in Lagos or Ibadan such that there is a serious possibility of persecution, and that failure to claim in the U.S.A. was reasonable; for the Associate Appellant there was no objective serious possibility of persecution but relocation to Lagos or Ibadan would be unreasonable given his age, lack of supports and vulnerability, so neither IFA is viable for him. On that basis the RAD...

Citation
TB8-33341
Parties
Principal Appellant: Mrs. A; Appellant (son): Associate Appellant; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division Substituting RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Reavailment, Procedural Fairness, Delay/failure to Claim Asylum
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Reavailment Procedural Fairness +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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. A

Principal Appellant

Associate Appellant

Appellant (son)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division Substituting RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reavailment indicates lack of subjective fear
  2. 2 Whether failure to claim in the U.S.A. was unreasonable and undermines credibility
  3. 3 Whether the husband has means and motivation to locate the appellants in Lagos or Ibadan

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded that Mrs. A’s reavailment trips were not egregious or indicative of a lack of subjective fear given the context (visits to recover and valid visas), that the husband has the motivation and means (property interests, government employment and connections, prior ability to locate her) to find her in Lagos or Ibadan such that there is a serious possibility of persecution, and that failure to claim in the U.S.A. was reasonable; for the Associate Appellant there was no objective serious possibility of persecution but relocation to Lagos or Ibadan would be unreasonable given his age, lack of supports and vulnerability, so neither IFA is viable for him. On that basis the RAD...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.