TC0-00644

TC0-00644

After independent assessment of the record the RAD found the Appellants failed to prove Port Harcourt was unsafe or unreasonable as an IFA: the evidence did not credibly establish that the named agent had the means or motivation to locate or persecute them in Port Harcourt, objective country documentation and personal circumstances (language, education, likely family accompaniment, employment and housing prospects) supported relocation, and medical/mental health evidence was insufficiently corroborated to overcome the IFA; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection is confirmed.

Citation
TC0-00644
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellants: Associate Appellants (three children); Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision rejecting refugee protection confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Indigeneity, Access to Healthcare, Employment and Housing, Child Refugee Considerations, Mental Health Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection +6 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

Associate Appellants (three children)

Appellants

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port Harcourt
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in procedure and in adequacy of reasons
  3. 3 Whether the agent of persecution (Uncle) had means and motivation to locate the Appellants in the IFA

Ratio Decidendi

After independent assessment of the record the RAD found the Appellants failed to prove Port Harcourt was unsafe or unreasonable as an IFA: the evidence did not credibly establish that the named agent had the means or motivation to locate or persecute them in Port Harcourt, objective country documentation and personal circumstances (language, education, likely family accompaniment, employment and housing prospects) supported relocation, and medical/mental health evidence was insufficiently corroborated to overcome the IFA; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision rejecting refugee protection confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision of December 12, 2019 confirmed
  • Claims of the Associate Appellants dismissed as dependent on Principal Appellant's evidence