TB7-25265

TB7-25265

The RAD admitted the new country police‑performance evidence, denied an oral hearing, found the Appellants were not required to seek police protection given credible evidence of police ineffectiveness, but concluded there is a viable and reasonable IFA in Port Harcourt (no serious possibility of persecution there), and accordingly confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal.

Citation
TB7-25265
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed but for different reasons pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing, Gender Based Persecution, Female Genital Mutilation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Gender Based Persecution +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing is required
  3. 3 Whether claimants were required to seek state protection in Nigeria

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD admitted the new country police‑performance evidence, denied an oral hearing, found the Appellants were not required to seek police protection given credible evidence of police ineffectiveness, but concluded there is a viable and reasonable IFA in Port Harcourt (no serious possibility of persecution there), and accordingly confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed but for different reasons pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • New evidence (Nov 12, 2017 newspaper article) admitted on appeal
  • Request for oral hearing denied