TC0-06324

TC0-06324

The RAD affirmed the RPD's finding that the Principal Appellant has an IFA in Port Harcourt and is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, but found the RPD erred by failing to distinguish the materially different facts affecting the minor Associate Appellants and, applying the CRC‑informed analysis, determined that Port Harcourt is an unreasonable IFA for the children because their age, lack of guardianship, absence of support networks and inadequate housing would jeopardize their life or safety, entitling them to Convention refugee protection.

Citation
TC0-06324
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for the Principal Appellant; appeal allowed for the Associate Appellants
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Definition, Procedural Fairness, Best Interests of the Child, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Child Rights Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Definition Procedural Fairness Best Interests of the Child +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists in Port Harcourt for the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in relying on the Jurisprudential Guide (JG) without distinguishing materially different facts
  3. 3 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness in relation to child claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD's finding that the Principal Appellant has an IFA in Port Harcourt and is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, but found the RPD erred by failing to distinguish the materially different facts affecting the minor Associate Appellants and, applying the CRC‑informed analysis, determined that Port Harcourt is an unreasonable IFA for the children because their age, lack of guardianship, absence of support networks and inadequate housing would jeopardize their life or safety, entitling them to Convention refugee protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for the Principal Appellant; appeal allowed for the Associate Appellants

Orders

  • Confirm the Refugee Protection Division decision that the Principal Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
  • Substitute decision finding the Associate Appellants are Convention refugees in need of protection and allow their appeals