VB9-07021

VB9-07021

The RAD found the RPD erred in assessing the agents of harm by discounting evidence that individuals purporting to be police were seeking the appellants and by failing to account for continuing motivation of Los Zetas; on independent review the RAD determined appellants face a risk of harm from Los Zetas and/or police in Merida and Mexico, state protection is unavailable, and therefore the appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA, allowing the appeal and substituting its own determination.

Citation
VB9-07021
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision Reasons and Substituted Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted with RAD determination that appellants are persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence, Remedy Under Section 111 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence Remedy Under Section 111 IRPA

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision Reasons and Substituted Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in identifying or assessing the agents of harm (Los Zetas and police)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding an internal flight alternative in Merida
  3. 3 Whether the Principal Appellant's affidavit should be admitted as new evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in assessing the agents of harm by discounting evidence that individuals purporting to be police were seeking the appellants and by failing to account for continuing motivation of Los Zetas; on independent review the RAD determined appellants face a risk of harm from Los Zetas and/or police in Merida and Mexico, state protection is unavailable, and therefore the appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA, allowing the appeal and substituting its own determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted with RAD determination that appellants are persons in need of protection

Orders

  • RPD decision set aside pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b)
  • Substituted determination that the appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA