TB9-03234

TB9-03234

The RAD confirmed the RPD because, on independent review, the proposed internal flight alternatives of Abuja and Port Harcourt are both safe and reasonable for the family; the appellants failed to prove persecutors could locate them nationwide or that relocation would be unduly harsh; the post‑decision Crisis Group report was no longer relevant and inadmissible, and no oral hearing was required.

Citation
TB9-03234
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (husband): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Male Minor Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Minor Appellant (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Final Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, Female Genital Mutilation, Gender Based Persecution, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing, Standard of Review, Indigeneship and Employment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings Female Genital Mutilation Gender Based Persecution Admissibility of New Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (husband)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Minor Appellant (son)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Minor Appellant (daughter)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Final Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (Abuja or Port Harcourt) was available and viable
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and required an oral hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because, on independent review, the proposed internal flight alternatives of Abuja and Port Harcourt are both safe and reasonable for the family; the appellants failed to prove persecutors could locate them nationwide or that relocation would be unduly harsh; the post‑decision Crisis Group report was no longer relevant and inadmissible, and no oral hearing was required.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
  • Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA