TB9-01816

TB9-01816

Having admitted and independently assessed the new evidence, the RAD found on the balance of probabilities that Port Harcourt is not a viable internal flight alternative because the Appellant's uncles have the means and continuing motivation to locate and kill him there, and that operationally adequate state protection in Nigeria is not reasonably available; accordingly the RPD decision is set aside and substituted with a finding that the Appellant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TB9-01816
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Decision on Appeal (substitution of RPD Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellant is a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), State Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Sur Place Claims, Credibility and Delay
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) State Protection Admissibility of New Evidence Sur Place Claims +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Decision on Appeal (substitution of RPD Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative
  2. 2 Whether operationally adequate state protection is available in Nigeria
  3. 3 Whether post‑decision/new evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Having admitted and independently assessed the new evidence, the RAD found on the balance of probabilities that Port Harcourt is not a viable internal flight alternative because the Appellant's uncles have the means and continuing motivation to locate and kill him there, and that operationally adequate state protection in Nigeria is not reasonably available; accordingly the RPD decision is set aside and substituted with a finding that the Appellant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellant is a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA

Orders

  • RPD decision of December 11, 2018 set aside
  • Substituted decision that the Appellant is a person in need of protection (s.97 IRPA)