TB9-23078

TB9-23078

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD did not breach natural justice (the member solicited the minor's evidence and counsel had notice that IFA would be considered), the post‑decision evidence was admissible in part under Rule 29 and s.110(4), and on the merits the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Lagos would expose them to a serious possibility of persecution or that relocation to Lagos would be objectively unreasonable; therefore Lagos is a viable and reasonable IFA and the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-23078
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Natural Justice Notice and Duty to Obtain Evidence, Admissibility of New Evidence (rule 29, S.110(4)), Best Interests of the Child, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative Natural Justice Notice and Duty to Obtain Evidence Admissibility of New Evidence (rule 29, S.110(4)) Best Interests of the Child +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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached natural justice by failing to obtain evidence from a minor claimant
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached natural justice by failing to provide notice that IFA would be considered and of the specific IFA locations
  3. 3 Whether Lagos is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD did not breach natural justice (the member solicited the minor's evidence and counsel had notice that IFA would be considered), the post‑decision evidence was admissible in part under Rule 29 and s.110(4), and on the merits the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Lagos would expose them to a serious possibility of persecution or that relocation to Lagos would be objectively unreasonable; therefore Lagos is a viable and reasonable IFA and the appellants 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
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA