VB9-02565

VB9-02565

The RAD independently reviewed the record, admitted most new public-safety materials but found them of minimal probative value, concluded appellants failed to show a serious possibility of persecution or section 97 risk in Port Harcourt and that relocation would not be objectively unreasonable; therefore the RPD's finding of a viable IFA in Port Harcourt was correct and dispositive, and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
VB9-02565
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Female Genital Mutilation, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Female Genital Mutilation Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Assessment Oral Hearing Request

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Port Harcourt constitutes a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the appellants
  2. 2 Whether newly submitted evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and warranted an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment and reasonableness analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD independently reviewed the record, admitted most new public-safety materials but found them of minimal probative value, concluded appellants failed to show a serious possibility of persecution or section 97 risk in Port Harcourt and that relocation would not be objectively unreasonable; therefore the RPD's finding of a viable IFA in Port Harcourt was correct and dispositive, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Decision of Refugee Protection Division dated March 6, 2019 confirmed