TB9-28605

TB9-28605

The RPD erred in its first-prong IFA analysis by failing to consider objective evidence that the Nigerian police share information with immigration authorities and maintain systems that would enable the appellants to be located, combined with the documented corruption and abuse by police; therefore Port Harcourt is not a viable internal flight alternative and seeking state protection is objectively unreasonable, so the RAD substitutes a decision that the appellants are persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Citation
TB9-28605
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision (rad Substitution)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own decision that the appellants are persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility, Admission of New Evidence, Substitution of Decision
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Credibility Admission of New 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision (rad Substitution)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative (first prong)
  2. 2 Whether the state would protect the appellants or would be a source of persecution
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred by failing to consider relevant objective evidence from the National Documentation Package

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in its first-prong IFA analysis by failing to consider objective evidence that the Nigerian police share information with immigration authorities and maintain systems that would enable the appellants to be located, combined with the documented corruption and abuse by police; therefore Port Harcourt is not a viable internal flight alternative and seeking state protection is objectively unreasonable, so the RAD substitutes a decision that the appellants are persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own decision that the appellants are persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Set aside RPD decision dated October 2, 2019 and substitute a decision that the appellants are persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • The appellants' proposed new evidence was not admitted or considered as it did not affect the disposition