TC0-11572

TC0-11572

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD erred on the second prong of the IFA test by failing to consider substantial contradictory evidence showing Port Harcourt was not a reasonable alternative given barriers to employment and housing, indigene hiring practices, high cost of living and risks to female heads of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TC0-11572
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellants: Minor Appellants; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted Finding)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Gender Related Persecution, Child Refugee Issues
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Convention Refugee Status Gender Related Persecution Child Refugee Issues

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Minor Appellants

Appellants

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted Finding)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the second prong of the internal flight alternative test
  2. 2 Whether adequate state protection would be available on return
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants have a well-founded fear of persecution based on opposition to ritual practices

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD erred on the second prong of the IFA test by failing to consider substantial contradictory evidence showing Port Harcourt was not a reasonable alternative given barriers to employment and housing, indigene hiring practices, high cost of living and risks to female heads of household; combined with ineffective state protection against forced ritual practices, the Appellants have a well‑founded fear of persecution and are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Set aside the RPD determination dated October 29, 2020.
  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, substitute the RAD's determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.