MB5-00720

MB5-00720

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision for different reasons: the RPD failed to assess credibility but on independent review the appellants failed to establish a well‑founded fear because of lack of corroboration, their conduct and travel history undermined the severity of risk, and a viable and reasonable IFA exists in Pristina where state protection and policing are sufficiently operational to remove a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or s.97 of IRPA.

Citation
MB5-00720
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Accompanying Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (written Reasons)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed for different reasons (IFA in Pristina)
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Accompanying Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (written Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its State protection analysis
  2. 2 Whether Pristina is a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
  3. 3 Whether credibility and conduct of the appellants undermine the well‑foundedness of fear

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision for different reasons: the RPD failed to assess credibility but on independent review the appellants failed to establish a well‑founded fear because of lack of corroboration, their conduct and travel history undermined the severity of risk, and a viable and reasonable IFA exists in Pristina where state protection and policing are sufficiently operational to remove a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or s.97 of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed for different reasons (IFA in Pristina)

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; Mr. XXXX XXXX and Ms. XXXX XXXX are neither Convention refugees pursuant to s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.97 IRPA.