MB9-06559

MB9-06559

After an independent correctness review the RAD concluded the RPD's failure to explicitly reference certain proffered articles was an error but not fatal; the documentary and oral evidence did not establish that the agents of persecution (the husband's kin or the XXXX society) had the means and motivation to find the appellants in Calabar, and the appellants failed to show undue hardship in relocating there; accordingly Calabar is a viable IFA and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB9-06559
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Female Genital Mutilation, Persecution by Secret Societies, State Protection, Credibility Findings, Guideline 3, Guideline 4
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Female Genital Mutilation Persecution by Secret Societies State Protection Credibility Findings +2 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative in Calabar
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established the reach and influence of the XXXX secret society such that IFA would be unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the appellants were entitled to an oral hearing/new evidence was required

Ratio Decidendi

After an independent correctness review the RAD concluded the RPD's failure to explicitly reference certain proffered articles was an error but not fatal; the documentary and oral evidence did not establish that the agents of persecution (the husband's kin or the XXXX society) had the means and motivation to find the appellants in Calabar, and the appellants failed to show undue hardship in relocating there; accordingly Calabar is a viable IFA and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act