MB9-09105

MB9-09105

The appeal is dismissed because, on the balance of probabilities, although the agent of persecution could search in Benin City (making it non-viable), the appellants failed to prove the agents have the ability to locate them in Abuja or Port Harcourt and failed to show relocation to those IFAs would be objectively unreasonable; additionally the new evidence did not undermine the RPD's core findings; therefore the RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA is confirmed.

Citation
MB9-09105
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal; New Evidence Considered Under S.110(4) IRPA
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of March 29, 2019 confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Persecution, Mental Health and Asylum, Credibility and Corroboration, Application of Jurisprudential Guide
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Persecution Mental Health and Asylum Credibility and Corroboration +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal; New Evidence Considered Under S.110(4) IRPA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and Raza/Singh (credibility, relevance, newness) tests
  2. 2 Whether Benin City, Abuja or Port Harcourt constituted viable internal flight alternatives (IFAs)
  3. 3 Whether agents of persecution had the ability and motivation to locate appellants in proposed IFAs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because, on the balance of probabilities, although the agent of persecution could search in Benin City (making it non-viable), the appellants failed to prove the agents have the ability to locate them in Abuja or Port Harcourt and failed to show relocation to those IFAs would be objectively unreasonable; additionally the new evidence did not undermine the RPD's core findings; therefore the RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of March 29, 2019 confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA