TB9-12278

TB9-12278

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD failed to consider credible evidence that the agent of persecution had located and threatened the Principal Appellant in another town and had repeatedly sought her whereabouts, demonstrating he was ready, willing and able to pursue her; therefore the proposed IFAs (Budapest and Pécs) were not viable under the Rasaratnam test and the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution; the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees and/or persons in need of protection pursuant to the IRPA.

Citation
TB9-12278
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (written Reasons; No Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellants found to be Convention refugees and persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, Credibility, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution Credibility 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (written Reasons; No Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its internal flight alternative (IFA) analysis
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to apply the IRB Gender Guidelines and consider gendered context and battered woman syndrome

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD failed to consider credible evidence that the agent of persecution had located and threatened the Principal Appellant in another town and had repeatedly sought her whereabouts, demonstrating he was ready, willing and able to pursue her; therefore the proposed IFAs (Budapest and Pécs) were not viable under the Rasaratnam test and the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution; the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees and/or persons in need of protection pursuant to the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellants found to be Convention refugees and persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(b) IRPA, the RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees and/or persons in need of protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.
  • No oral hearing was held because no new evidence was presented (subsection 110(6) IRPA).