TB7-08962

TB7-08962

The RPD's finding that Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative is correct and is affirmed because the Appellants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution there or that relocation would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh given the size and distance of Port Harcourt, lack of evidence the persecutors could locate them there, and the Principal Appellant's and husband's socio‑economic profile; new evidence was partially admitted but did not raise a serious credibility issue to warrant an oral hearing; accordingly the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) of the Act and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB7-08962
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From RPD Decision; Rule 29 Application for New Evidence and Request for Oral Hearing Considered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)), Oral Hearing (s.110(6)), Application of Gender Guidelines, Child Refugee Considerations, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Procedural Fairness Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)) Oral Hearing (s.110(6)) +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

Minister

Respondent

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From RPD Decision; Rule 29 Application for New Evidence and Request for Oral Hearing Considered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding Port Harcourt a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Whether new evidence filed after perfection should be admitted under s.110(4) and Rule 29
  3. 3 Whether the new evidence justified an oral hearing under s.110(6)

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's finding that Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative is correct and is affirmed because the Appellants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution there or that relocation would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh given the size and distance of Port Harcourt, lack of evidence the persecutors could locate them there, and the Principal Appellant's and husband's socio‑economic profile; new evidence was partially admitted but did not raise a serious credibility issue to warrant an oral hearing; accordingly the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) of the Act and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated April 28, 2017 is confirmed
  • Appeal dismissed