TC0-10473

TC0-10473

On independent review the RAD confirmed the RPD: the Appellants failed to discharge the burden to show on a balance of probabilities that Abuja is unsafe or that relocation there would be unduly harsh or unreasonable; the attempted new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4); accordingly the RPD decision rejecting refugee and protection claims is correct and is confirmed.

Citation
TC0-10473
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellants Minors: Three minor children (names redacted); Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Irpa) / Final Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Admission of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Credibility and Weight of Evidence, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Family Law (fgm Context) Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Admission of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Convention Refugee Determination State Protection +2 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate

Three minor children (names redacted)

Appellants Minors

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Irpa) / Final Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA and relevant jurisprudential factors
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Abuja (safety and reasonableness two‑prong test)
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in credibility and individualized analysis

Ratio Decidendi

On independent review the RAD confirmed the RPD: the Appellants failed to discharge the burden to show on a balance of probabilities that Abuja is unsafe or that relocation there would be unduly harsh or unreasonable; the attempted new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4); accordingly the RPD decision rejecting refugee and protection claims is correct and is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal and confirms the Refugee Protection Division decision dated August 24, 2020, that the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection (s.111(1)(a) IRPA).