VB9-04360

VB9-04360

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the Appellants failed to establish that the OSS had the means, motivation or interest to search for and persecute them throughout Nigeria and failed to rebut the presumption of state protection; credible country documentation (Nigerian NDP) shows OSS influence is localized and does not extend to Abuja or Port Harcourt, and those cities constitute viable and reasonable IFAs; the new evidence was inadmissible or irrelevant under s.110(4) IRPA.

Citation
VB9-04360
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection) / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, State Protection Presumption, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review State Protection Presumption Credibility Assessment

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection) / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Existence of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Nigeria
  2. 2 Admissibility of proposed new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of review for RAD

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the Appellants failed to establish that the OSS had the means, motivation or interest to search for and persecute them throughout Nigeria and failed to rebut the presumption of state protection; credible country documentation (Nigerian NDP) shows OSS influence is localized and does not extend to Abuja or Port Harcourt, and those cities constitute viable and reasonable IFAs; the new evidence was inadmissible or irrelevant under s.110(4) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • Medical report tendered as new evidence is inadmissible under subsection 110(4) IRPA