TB9-08024

TB9-08024

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the determinative issue was IFA and, on independent analysis, Port Harcourt was a safe and reasonable IFA; the new evidence was either inadmissible or irrelevant to overturn the IFA finding, therefore the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
TB9-08024
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; First Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing, Failure to Claim in US
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Failure to Claim in US

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

First Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza admissibility criteria
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred on credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether failure to claim in the US negates subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the determinative issue was IFA and, on independent analysis, Port Harcourt was a safe and reasonable IFA; the new evidence was either inadmissible or irrelevant to overturn the IFA finding, therefore the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeals rejected
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA