Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision finding a viable internal flight alternative in Nigeria and no reviewable error.
The appeal is dismissed because on independent review the RAD finds that a viable internal flight alternative exists in Abuja: the Appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that their family had the means or sustained motivation to locate them there, and objective country and documentary evidence demonstrates that relocation to Abuja would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh given available mental health services, employment prospects and the limited role of indigeneship in the capital; the new medical evidence concerning the son does not alter that conclusion nor justify an or…
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found on a balance of probabilities that appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Abuja; the RPD's findings that appellants failed to prove persecutors have the means and motivation to locate them in Abuja were reasonable; most country-condition evidence post-dating the RPD decision was admissible but claimant-specific documents were not credible and thus rejected; the Gender Guidelines did not alter the IFA analysis in the appellants' circumstances.
Source excerpt
On an independent assessment the RAD found the RPD correctly determined Port Harcourt is a viable IFA: applicants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that agents of persecution have the means to locate them there and failed to show relocation would be objectively unreasonable given their personal circumstances; new evidence was either inadmissible or not determinative; appeal is dismissed and RPD decision is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA, the appellants' testimony contained material omissions and inconsistencies that fatally undermined credibility, there was no objective basis demonstrating a serious possibility of persecution, and reasonable and available internal flight alternatives existed in Port Harcourt and Abuja.
Source excerpt
The Appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that relocation to Abuja would be unsafe or unreasonable; the Appellant's account that her ex-husband located and photographed her in multiple distant locations is implausible and undermines her claim of being discoverable anywhere, and the totality of evidence supports that Abuja is a viable IFA given her education, work history and family support, therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection is confirmed.
Source excerpt
The RPD erred in law and fact by presuming, without evidence, that the appellant's husband would return to Nigeria and provide support; treating the appellant as not a single woman distorted the IFA second‑prong analysis. Considering updated country documentation and the appellant's lack of family or social network, relocation to Port Harcourt or Abuja would be objectively unreasonable and unduly harsh for a single woman, and state protection was rebutted. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is a person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that agents of persecution have the capacity and motivation to locate and persecute them in the proposed internal flight locations, and relocation to Lagos or Abuja would not be unduly harsh or unreasonable given their personal circumstances; therefore a viable IFA existed and the RPD decision that they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection was correct.
Source excerpt
The RAD accepted the Appellants' credibility on core issues, found that there is a serious possibility of persecution beyond Benin City including Abuja, Port Harcourt and Calabar and that relocation to those cities would be unreasonable because the cumulative economic, cultural and indigeneship barriers amount to undue hardship; therefore no viable internal flight alternative exists and the Appellants qualify as Convention refugees.
Source excerpt
Appellant failed to discharge the burden to show Abuja is not a viable IFA: omission of influential-actor assertions from the BOC and vague hearing testimony justified adverse inference; there is no credible evidence that his agents are influential or have access to state/SIM databases to locate him; employment, housing, indigeneship and COVID-19 access issues do not meet the high threshold of unreasonableness; therefore no serious possibility of persecution or risk to life/torture in Abuja and RPD decision confirmed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
