MB9-04646

MB9-04646

The appellants failed to establish that agents of persecution had the demonstrated reach, desire and power to locate them throughout Nigeria or that relocation to Ibadan would be unduly harsh; therefore a viable IFA exists and the RPD correctly concluded they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-04646
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada); Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Female Genital Mutilation, Credibility, Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Female Genital Mutilation Credibility Convention Refugee Persons in Need of Protection +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) existed in Ibadan
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by considering an IFA before assessing credibility
  3. 3 Whether the Jurisprudential Guide (JG) was appropriately applied

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to establish that agents of persecution had the demonstrated reach, desire and power to locate them throughout Nigeria or that relocation to Ibadan would be unduly harsh; therefore a viable IFA exists and the RPD correctly concluded they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; confirm RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act