TC2-28448

TC2-28448

The Appellants were found credible but failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a subsection 97(1) risk; objective and testimonial evidence established stigma and discrimination but not persecution, the agents of harm were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TC2-28448
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant 1: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant 2: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Persons in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Credibility, Persecution, Disability Discrimination, Witchcraft Accusations, Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of New Evidence, Cumulative Discrimination
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Status Persons in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Credibility Persecution +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant 1

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant 2

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD decision was procedurally fair

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellants were found credible but failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a subsection 97(1) risk; objective and testimonial evidence established stigma and discrimination but not persecution, the agents of harm were unidentified and there was insufficient evidence they could locate or target the Appellants in Port Harcourt, and Port Harcourt constituted a reasonable IFA; accordingly the RPD decision denying refugee protection and finding an IFA was correct and is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision dated 12 September 2022 is confirmed
  • Two items of new evidence admitted to the Record but no oral hearing granted