TC2-09757

TC2-09757

Most proffered new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza requirements; the sole admitted post-decision article did not establish a personalized risk or satisfy the high threshold to render the proposed IFAs objectively unreasonable; appellants therefore have viable IFAs and are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TC2-09757
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Risk Assessment, Standard of Review/independent Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law International Protection Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Admissibility of New Evidence +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) analysis
  2. 2 Whether proposed new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza tests and is admissible
  3. 3 Whether appellants face a personalized risk of harm in proposed IFA locations

Ratio Decidendi

Most proffered new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza requirements; the sole admitted post-decision article did not establish a personalized risk or satisfy the high threshold to render the proposed IFAs objectively unreasonable; appellants therefore have viable IFAs and are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of Refugee Protection Division affirmed: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection