MB9-13938

MB9-13938

The RAD admitted certain new evidence (COVID-19 materials, psychotherapy reports, church letter) but rejected other late evidence that could have been obtained earlier. Applying the IFA two‑prong test, the RAD found the appellants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that the PA's husband or Boko Haram had the means and motivation to locate them in Abuja or Port Harcourt. However, on prong two the PA established that relocation would be unreasonable given her personal circumstances (single woman, prior inability to secure employment in Nigeria, lack of supports), the disproportionate gendered impacts of COVID‑19, and the resultant inability to secure safe housing and employment...

Citation
MB9-13938
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellant: Associate Appellant; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: Principal Appellant recognized as a Convention refugee; Associate Appellant's appeal dismissed and RPD decision upheld.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Admissibility of New Evidence (rule 29; S.110(4) Irpa), COVID 19 Impacts on Country Conditions, Mental Health and Relocation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Determination Admissibility of New Evidence (rule 29; S.110(4) Irpa) COVID 19 Impacts on Country Conditions Mental Health and Relocation

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Associate Appellant

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed Internal Flight Alternatives (Abuja and Port Harcourt) are viable for each appellant
  2. 2 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal meets Rule 29 and s.110(4) IRPA thresholds and should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether appellants meet the definition of a Convention refugee or are persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD admitted certain new evidence (COVID-19 materials, psychotherapy reports, church letter) but rejected other late evidence that could have been obtained earlier. Applying the IFA two‑prong test, the RAD found the appellants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that the PA's husband or Boko Haram had the means and motivation to locate them in Abuja or Port Harcourt. However, on prong two the PA established that relocation would be unreasonable given her personal circumstances (single woman, prior inability to secure employment in Nigeria, lack of supports), the disproportionate gendered impacts of COVID‑19, and the resultant inability to secure safe housing and employment...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Principal Appellant recognized as a Convention refugee; Associate Appellant's appeal dismissed and RPD decision upheld.

Orders

  • Substitute decision: Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee
  • Associate Appellant's appeal dismissed; RPD decision that he is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection is upheld