MB9-29364

MB9-29364

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's assessment that the appellants suffered localized harassment that did not meet the s.97 threshold for cruel or unusual treatment, and that reasonable internal flight alternatives existed in Mexico City or Mérida, was reasonable despite limited credibility analysis; accordingly appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-29364
Parties
Principal Appellant: PAXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: AA; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (six Year Old Son): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (seven Year Old Son): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (one Year Old Son): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Standard of Review, Section 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Standard of Review +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PAXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

AA

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (six Year Old Son)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (seven Year Old Son)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (one Year Old Son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative exists

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's assessment that the appellants suffered localized harassment that did not meet the s.97 threshold for cruel or unusual treatment, and that reasonable internal flight alternatives existed in Mexico City or Mérida, was reasonable despite limited credibility analysis; accordingly appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal and confirms the determination of the Refugee Protection Division that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.