VC0-02369

VC0-02369

On a balance of probabilities the RPD was correct that the cartel actors were no longer interested or motivated to locate the Appellants in Campeche or Merida and that relocation to these IFA locations was reasonable in all the circumstances for the Principal Appellant, Associate Appellant and two children, but the child XXXX faces a heightened risk from COVID-19 such that travel and relocation to the IFA would be unduly harsh and therefore that child is a person in need of protection (substituted decision).

Citation
VC0-02369
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Split decision: appeals dismissed for Principal Appellant, Associate Appellant and two children; appeal allowed for child XXXX who is found to be a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, New Evidence Admissibility, COVID 19 and Relocation Risk, Person in Need of Protection, Convention Refugee Test
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Asylum Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings New Evidence Admissibility COVID 19 and Relocation Risk Person in Need of Protection +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child

XXXX

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Campeche and Merida
  2. 2 Whether the incidents were linked and established nexus to a Convention ground
  3. 3 Admissibility of evidence arising after the RPD decision

Ratio Decidendi

On a balance of probabilities the RPD was correct that the cartel actors were no longer interested or motivated to locate the Appellants in Campeche or Merida and that relocation to these IFA locations was reasonable in all the circumstances for the Principal Appellant, Associate Appellant and two children, but the child XXXX faces a heightened risk from COVID-19 such that travel and relocation to the IFA would be unduly harsh and therefore that child is a person in need of protection (substituted decision).

Court Disposition

Split decision: appeals dismissed for Principal Appellant, Associate Appellant and two children; appeal allowed for child XXXX who is found to be a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed for Principal Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Associate Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX, and children XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX.
  • Appeal allowed for child XXXX; substituted decision that XXXX is a person in need of protection.