TB9-11572

TB9-11572

The Adult Associate Appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E because she can obtain, via spousal sponsorship, status in Jordan substantially similar to nationals (right of return, work, study and access to services); furthermore the Appellants failed to rebut a viable Internal Flight Alternative in Al‑Aqaba since they did not demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the persecutor could locate them there or that relocation would be unreasonable, therefore the RPD's refusal of refugee protection is correct and is affirmed.

Citation
TB9-11572
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Adult Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Well‑founded Fear, Sponsorship and Acquisition of Permanent Residence, Burden of Proof, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Well‑founded Fear Sponsorship and Acquisition of Permanent Residence Burden of Proof +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Adult Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adult Associate Appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants have a viable Internal Flight Alternative in Al‑Aqaba, Jordan
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants have established a well‑founded fear of persecution such that they qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The Adult Associate Appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E because she can obtain, via spousal sponsorship, status in Jordan substantially similar to nationals (right of return, work, study and access to services); furthermore the Appellants failed to rebut a viable Internal Flight Alternative in Al‑Aqaba since they did not demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the persecutor could locate them there or that relocation would be unreasonable, therefore the RPD's refusal of refugee protection is correct and is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed

Orders

  • Confirm that the Adult Associate Appellant is excluded from international protection under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention
  • Confirm that the Principal Appellant and Minor Associate Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act