VC0-01511

VC0-01511

The RPD erred by finding Abuja a reasonable IFA; credible new evidence and the appellants' consistent sworn testimony establish on a balance of probabilities that Abuja's current high insecurity, targeted risk to Christians, ineffective state protection for family/private matters, and lack of sufficient housing and employment for a family of five create unduly harsh conditions that make Abuja an unreasonable IFA, entitling the Appellants to protection.

Citation
VC0-01511
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Appellants: Malvin J. Harding; Respondent: Minister; Panel Member / Decision Maker: Karen Wallace
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Decision (substitution by Adjudicator)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the Appellants are persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Female Genital Mutilation, State Protection, Persecution, New Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Female Genital Mutilation State Protection Persecution +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (child)

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Malvin J. Harding

Counsel for Appellants

Minister

Respondent

Karen Wallace

Panel Member / Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Decision (substitution by Adjudicator)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in finding a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative in Abuja
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants are persons in need of protection given threats from family and pro‑Biafra separatists
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred by finding Abuja a reasonable IFA; credible new evidence and the appellants' consistent sworn testimony establish on a balance of probabilities that Abuja's current high insecurity, targeted risk to Christians, ineffective state protection for family/private matters, and lack of sufficient housing and employment for a family of five create unduly harsh conditions that make Abuja an unreasonable IFA, entitling the Appellants to protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the Appellants are persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and RPD decision set aside; substituted decision: Appellants are persons in need of protection