TB6-08520

TB6-08520

On the record and applying the correctness standard, the RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that there was a serious possibility of persecution in the identified IFA locales (Abuja or Ibadan) and failed to show that relocation there would be unreasonable; most new evidence was inadmissible or immaterial and the psychological report was given little weight because the author was not authorized to communicate a medical diagnosis.

Citation
TB6-08520
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether new evidence submitted on appeal was admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 whether the RPD's credibility findings were reasonable and affected determinative issues
  3. 3 whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) to Abuja or Ibadan exists

Ratio Decidendi

On the record and applying the correctness standard, the RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that there was a serious possibility of persecution in the identified IFA locales (Abuja or Ibadan) and failed to show that relocation there would be unreasonable; most new evidence was inadmissible or immaterial and the psychological report was given little weight because the author was not authorized to communicate a medical diagnosis.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The RAD confirms the RPD determination that the Appellant and her two children are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • No referral to a different RPD member; appeal dismissed