TB9-10507

TB9-10507

The RAD dismissed the appeals and confirmed the RPD because on independent review the appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life/torture/cruel treatment in Abuja, Port Harcourt or Kaduna; the proffered new evidence was largely inadmissible or not credible and not determinative of IFA; relocation to those cities would not be objectively unreasonable given the appellants' profiles and available country documentation.

Citation
TB9-10507
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision Issued by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, Admission of New Evidence, Female Genital Mutilation, Non State Actors, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings Admission of New Evidence Female Genital Mutilation Non State Actors +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 5 Authorities cited 12 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

Designated Representative

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision Issued by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence met subsection 110(4) IRPA and warranted an oral hearing under s.110(6)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Abuja, Port Harcourt and Kaduna

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeals and confirmed the RPD because on independent review the appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life/torture/cruel treatment in Abuja, Port Harcourt or Kaduna; the proffered new evidence was largely inadmissible or not credible and not determinative of IFA; relocation to those cities would not be objectively unreasonable given the appellants' profiles and available country documentation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act