TB9-13884

TB9-13884

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof that agents of persecution had the ability and resources to find them in Port Harcourt or Ibadan and failed to show that relocation would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh; the RPD's finding of viable IFAs in Port Harcourt and Ibadan is correct and must be confirmed.

Citation
TB9-13884
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants (minor Claimants): XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) / Gender Based Persecution, Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal, Oral Hearing Discretionary Criteria, Standard of Review/correctness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) / Gender Based Persecution Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal Oral Hearing Discretionary Criteria Standard of Review/correctness

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants (minor Claimants)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed internal flight alternatives (Port Harcourt and Ibadan) are viable
  2. 2 Whether new evidence filed on appeal is admissible and material
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing is required under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof that agents of persecution had the ability and resources to find them in Port Harcourt or Ibadan and failed to show that relocation would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh; the RPD's finding of viable IFAs in Port Harcourt and Ibadan is correct and must be confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
  • Request for an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA denied.