MB9-25180

MB9-25180

The appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a serious possibility of persecution in the identified internal flight alternative cities; credibility concerns, objective country information showing low risk in those cities, and the appellant's ability to relocate (education, language, employment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB9-25180
Parties
Appellant: Sarafa Korede Oladejo; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, State Protection, Political Opinion, Persecution
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility State Protection Political Opinion Persecution

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarafa Korede Oladejo

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Nigeria (Abuja, Lagos, Benin City)
  2. 2 Whether the appellant credibly established a serious possibility of persecution by APC members/One Million Boys
  3. 3 Whether Boko Haram or Fulani herders pose a serious risk in proposed IFA cities

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a serious possibility of persecution in the identified internal flight alternative cities; credibility concerns, objective country information showing low risk in those cities, and the appellant's ability to relocate (education, language, employment prospects) establish that relocation to Lagos, Abuja or Benin City is viable and reasonable, therefore the RPD decision rejecting protection was correct and is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The RPD determination that the appellant failed to establish he is a refugee or a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA is confirmed.