TB9-24656

TB9-24656

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because, on an independent assessment and on the balance of probabilities, the Appellants failed to discharge the burden to show Port Harcourt is not a realistic and attainable internal flight alternative: the first Rasaratnam prong (no serious possibility of persecution) and second prong (not objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh) were both satisfied for Port Harcourt; the husband's affidavit was admitted but did not establish a serious possibility of persecution; the legal opinion was not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA; the request for an oral hearing was denied.

Citation
TB9-24656
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Joined Appellant (mother): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division After RPD Refusal; Determination on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits (ifa)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Female Genital Mutilation, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Indigeneship and Relocation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Female Genital Mutilation Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Indigeneship and Relocation

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Joined Appellant (mother)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division After RPD Refusal; Determination on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits (ifa)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Admissibility of two items of new evidence submitted on appeal (husband's affidavit and legal opinion)
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing before the RAD is required

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because, on an independent assessment and on the balance of probabilities, the Appellants failed to discharge the burden to show Port Harcourt is not a realistic and attainable internal flight alternative: the first Rasaratnam prong (no serious possibility of persecution) and second prong (not objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh) were both satisfied for Port Harcourt; the husband's affidavit was admitted but did not establish a serious possibility of persecution; the legal opinion was not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA; the request for an oral hearing was denied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • Affidavit of husband admitted as new evidence but found not determinative