TC0-09230

TC0-09230

The appeals are dismissed because the appellants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Lagos or Port Harcourt are unsafe IFAs: insufficient credible evidence established the Chief's power, reach or sustained interest; key supporting affidavit was irregular/fraudulent; inconsistencies undermine the asserted risk; medical evidence did not demonstrate that relocation would be unreasonable; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TC0-09230
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Adult Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Dated July 13, 2020
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of July 13, 2020 confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Definition, Medical Evidence in Refugee Claims, Burden of Proof, Indigeneship and Relocation
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Definition Medical Evidence in Refugee Claims Burden of Proof Indigeneship and Relocation

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Adult Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Minor Appellant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Dated July 13, 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are credible and have a subjective fear
  2. 2 Whether Internal Flight Alternatives (Lagos or Port Harcourt) are viable
  3. 3 Whether the agents of persecution (Chief) have sufficient reach, power and connections to make IFAs unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are dismissed because the appellants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Lagos or Port Harcourt are unsafe IFAs: insufficient credible evidence established the Chief's power, reach or sustained interest; key supporting affidavit was irregular/fraudulent; inconsistencies undermine the asserted risk; medical evidence did not demonstrate that relocation would be unreasonable; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of July 13, 2020 confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection