MB9-04264

MB9-04264

On independent review the RAD found interpretation adequate, the Appellants failed to rebut the presumption of a viable internal flight alternative to Chittagong by not demonstrating a serious possibility of persecution there or that relocation would be unreasonable; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA and dismissed the appeal.

Citation
MB9-04264
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Determination) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal (rad Confirming Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Interpretation/language Rights, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Interpretation/language Rights 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Determination) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal (rad Confirming Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interpretation at the RPD hearing was inadequate
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants were credible
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) to Chittagong exists

Ratio Decidendi

On independent review the RAD found interpretation adequate, the Appellants failed to rebut the presumption of a viable internal flight alternative to Chittagong by not demonstrating a serious possibility of persecution there or that relocation would be unreasonable; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD confirms the RPD determination
  • Appeal dismissed