TB5-02007

TB5-02007

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because Port Harcourt was found to be a viable, reasonable Internal Flight Alternative and thus determinative; the new evidence submitted on appeal was either not genuine or carried little weight and credibility concerns remained, so the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB5-02007
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Son: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Daughter: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Review of Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision With New Evidence Submitted
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Section 97 IRPA Analysis, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Section 97 IRPA Analysis +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Son

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Daughter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Review of Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision With New Evidence Submitted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility and weight of new evidence under s110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Credibility of principal Appellant's testimony
  3. 3 Availability and reasonableness of an Internal Flight Alternative (Port Harcourt)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because Port Harcourt was found to be a viable, reasonable Internal Flight Alternative and thus determinative; the new evidence submitted on appeal was either not genuine or carried little weight and credibility concerns remained, so the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed