TC0-04680

TC0-04680

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly concluded, on the evidence and after admitting limited new material, that Abuja is a viable internal flight alternative for the appellants and that the appellants therefore are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA; the new evidence was not determinative and the oral hearing preconditions were not met.

Citation
TC0-04680
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Immigration)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal, Oral Hearing Request Under S.110(6) IRPA, Credibility and Reasons Standard, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Mental Health in Refugee Claims, Use of Jurisprudential Guides (jg) and RAD Reasons of Interest
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal Oral Hearing Request Under S.110(6) IRPA Credibility and Reasons Standard Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister (Immigration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD correctly found Abuja to be a viable internal flight alternative for the appellants
  2. 2 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal is admissible and determinative
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing is required under subsection 110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly concluded, on the evidence and after admitting limited new material, that Abuja is a viable internal flight alternative for the appellants and that the appellants therefore are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA; the new evidence was not determinative and the oral hearing preconditions were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed; appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.