TB9-12885

TB9-12885

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly determined that the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Port Harcourt: the State is not an agent of persecution, there is insufficient credible evidence that the Ifa chief priest or agents have the means to locate the Appellants in Port Harcourt, the minor females are unlikely to be subjected to FGM there, and the new affidavits are either inadmissible, not credible or not new; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-12885
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility, Child Best Interests, Country Conditions (nigeria)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Child Best Interests +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants

Minister

Respondent

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Port Harcourt
  2. 2 Whether the State is an agent of persecution
  3. 3 Whether the minor female Appellants face a real risk of FGM in Port Harcourt

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly determined that the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Port Harcourt: the State is not an agent of persecution, there is insufficient credible evidence that the Ifa chief priest or agents have the means to locate the Appellants in Port Harcourt, the minor females are unlikely to be subjected to FGM there, and the new affidavits are either inadmissible, not credible or not new; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision dated April 25, 2019 confirmed
  • Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act