TB4-02011

TB4-02011

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellants failed to establish that new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA, their request for an oral hearing was denied, and on the merits there is, on a balance of probabilities, a viable and reasonable IFA available in Port Harcourt or Benin City such that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB4-02011
Parties
Appellant: XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX (minor); Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) IRPA, Gender Based Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) IRPA +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX

Appellant

XXXX (minor)

Minor Appellant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing is required under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should overturn or confirm RPD credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellants failed to establish that new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA, their request for an oral hearing was denied, and on the merits there is, on a balance of probabilities, a viable and reasonable IFA available in Port Harcourt or Benin City such that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
  • Appeals dismissed