TC0-09221

TC0-09221

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the proposed medical evidence was not demonstrated to be new and admissible; the appellants failed to prove on credible evidence that the agents of persecution have the reach or means to find and harm them in Port Harcourt; and Port Harcourt is not objectively unreasonable given the appellants' education, work history and access to private sector employment and services, therefore an IFA exists and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
TC0-09221
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants (minors): XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of June 30, 2020 confirmed (appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection)
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), New Evidence Admissibility, Credibility Assessment, Burden of Proof, Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Indigeneity and Access to Services
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) New Evidence Admissibility Credibility Assessment Burden of Proof Convention Refugee Determination +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants (minors)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new medical evidence post-RPD decision
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to properly assess subjective fear and credibility before IFA analysis
  3. 3 Whether agents of persecution have the reach and power to harm appellants in Port Harcourt

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the proposed medical evidence was not demonstrated to be new and admissible; the appellants failed to prove on credible evidence that the agents of persecution have the reach or means to find and harm them in Port Harcourt; and Port Harcourt is not objectively unreasonable given the appellants' education, work history and access to private sector employment and services, therefore an IFA exists and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of June 30, 2020 confirmed (appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection)