TB9-29550

TB9-29550

The appeal is dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the Appellants have a viable and reasonable Internal Flight Alternative in Port Harcourt and have not shown the agents of persecution would have the means or reach to find and seriously harm them there, nor that relocation there would expose them to torture, death or cruel treatment.

Citation
TB9-29550
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Reasons)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution, Convention Refugee Determination, Corroboration, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing on Appeal
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative Persecution Convention Refugee Determination Corroboration Admissibility 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether previous mistreatment amounted to persecution
  2. 2 Whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists in Port Harcourt
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should admit new evidence and convene an oral hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the Appellants have a viable and reasonable Internal Flight Alternative in Port Harcourt and have not shown the agents of persecution would have the means or reach to find and seriously harm them there, nor that relocation there would expose them to torture, death or cruel treatment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD decision pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Request for an oral hearing on appeal is denied