TC0-09649

TC0-09649

The RAD confirmed that the mother and minors can access Philippine citizenship and did not establish a forward‑looking risk in the Philippines; the RPD erred in treating the Philippines as a country of reference for the Principal Appellant because Filipino citizenship in his case is discretionary and uncertain, and on the determinative issue the PA has a viable IFA in Lahore as both Rasaratnam prongs are satisfied (no serious possibility of persecution in Lahore and relocation to Lahore is reasonable); therefore all appeals are dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
TC0-09649
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) From RPD Decision / Disposition / Reasons (decision on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Country of Reference / Nationality, Convention Refugee Determination, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Country of Reference / Nationality Convention Refugee Determination Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) From RPD Decision / Disposition / Reasons (decision on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the Philippines is a country of reference for the Principal Appellant
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Lahore or Islamabad for the Principal Appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed that the mother and minors can access Philippine citizenship and did not establish a forward‑looking risk in the Philippines; the RPD erred in treating the Philippines as a country of reference for the Principal Appellant because Filipino citizenship in his case is discretionary and uncertain, and on the determinative issue the PA has a viable IFA in Lahore as both Rasaratnam prongs are satisfied (no serious possibility of persecution in Lahore and relocation to Lahore is reasonable); therefore all appeals are dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed and RPD decision dated July 15, 2020 is confirmed