TB9-17533

TB9-17533

Appellants failed to meet the burden to show Abuja was unsafe or unreasonable as an IFA: they did not prove on a balance of probabilities that persecutors had the means and motivation to find them in a large city, and their employment, language and medical difficulties did not render relocation objectively unreasonable; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Citation
TB9-17533
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (o.i.h): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision (refugee Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Findings, Mental Health Evidence, Minor Claimants
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Findings Mental Health Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (o.i.h)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision (refugee Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence filed on appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Abuja
  3. 3 Whether the appellants proved a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life on relocation to Abuja

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants failed to meet the burden to show Abuja was unsafe or unreasonable as an IFA: they did not prove on a balance of probabilities that persecutors had the means and motivation to find them in a large city, and their employment, language and medical difficulties did not render relocation objectively unreasonable; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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