MB9-14174

MB9-14174

The RAD admitted the proffered new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA but refused an oral hearing under s.110(6); on the merits the RAD found no viable IFA to Abuja for the Associate Appellant and two children because required psychiatric medication and specialised kidney treatment are not accessible or economically accessible in Nigeria and family unity considerations render relocation unduly harsh, and therefore set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the Principal Appellant, the Associate Appellant and the two Nigeria‑citizen minor appellants are Convention refugees under paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA, while confirming the RPD decision dismissing the claims of the two US‑citizen...

Citation
MB9-14174
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: appeal allowed and RPD decision set aside and substituted in favour of the Principal Appellant, Associate Appellant and two Nigeria‑citizen minors (declared Convention refugees); appeal dismissed for two US‑citizen minors (claims rejected).
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Persons in Need of Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Mental Health and Healthcare Access, Family Unity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Persons in Need of Protection Admissibility of New Evidence Mental Health and Healthcare Access Family Unity

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA and request for oral hearing under s.110(6)
  2. 2 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) to Abuja for each appellant
  3. 3 Whether Associate Appellant and certain minors are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD admitted the proffered new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA but refused an oral hearing under s.110(6); on the merits the RAD found no viable IFA to Abuja for the Associate Appellant and two children because required psychiatric medication and specialised kidney treatment are not accessible or economically accessible in Nigeria and family unity considerations render relocation unduly harsh, and therefore set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the Principal Appellant, the Associate Appellant and the two Nigeria‑citizen minor appellants are Convention refugees under paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA, while confirming the RPD decision dismissing the claims of the two US‑citizen...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: appeal allowed and RPD decision set aside and substituted in favour of the Principal Appellant, Associate Appellant and two Nigeria‑citizen minors (declared Convention refugees); appeal dismissed for two US‑citizen minors (claims rejected).

Orders

  • Admit new evidence submitted on appeal pursuant to subsection 110(4) IRPA
  • Refuse request for an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) IRPA