TC3-40425

TC3-40425

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD reasonably concluded that the appellants failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the CJNG would be motivated to locate and harm them in Merida and that relocating to Merida would be unreasonable for them; the RAD refused to admit the proffered new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza due to timing, availability and credibility concerns; accordingly the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TC3-40425
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Non State Actor Persecution, Extortion, Best Interests of the Child
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Non State Actor Persecution Extortion +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) applies
  3. 3 Whether new evidence meets subsection 110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza (new, credible, relevant)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD reasonably concluded that the appellants failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the CJNG would be motivated to locate and harm them in Merida and that relocating to Merida would be unreasonable for them; the RAD refused to admit the proffered new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza due to timing, availability and credibility concerns; accordingly the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision dated August 16, 2023 rejecting refugee protection claim confirmed