MB9-16625

MB9-16625

The RAD dismisses the appeals and confirms the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because the evidence does not establish a reasonable possibility of persecution or personal risk (no nexus for the principal appellant; lapse of time and lack of current interest for threats to the associate appellant; minors not shown to face persecution in the US) and, alternatively, a viable internal flight alternative exists for the associate appellant.

Citation
MB9-16625
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Particular Social Group, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Generalized Risk, Credibility, Family Unity
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Particular Social Group Nexus to Convention Grounds +3 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the principal appellant has nexus to a Convention ground or is targeted by MS (maras)
  3. 3 Whether the associate appellant faces a real risk from parents or assailant and whether an IFA is viable

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismisses the appeals and confirms the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because the evidence does not establish a reasonable possibility of persecution or personal risk (no nexus for the principal appellant; lapse of time and lack of current interest for threats to the associate appellant; minors not shown to face persecution in the US) and, alternatively, a viable internal flight alternative exists for the associate appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD determination confirmed pursuant to section 111(1) of the IRPA