MB8-11869

MB8-11869

The RAD confirms the RPD: objective country evidence and the facts show no serious possibility of persecution or serious harm in Cali and relocation there is not objectively unreasonable for these Appellants; the RPD therefore lawfully concluded a viable IFA exists in Cali and the appeal is dismissed. New evidence was authorized for filing under Rule 29 and certain items were admitted but do not alter the IFA conclusion.

Citation
MB8-11869
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse of Principal Appellant / Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Daughter / Appellant (subject of Appeal): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a)
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal (rad Rule 29; IRPA S.110(4)), Credibility and Weight of Evidence, Standard of Review (correctness)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal (rad Rule 29; IRPA S.110(4)) Credibility and Weight of Evidence Standard of Review (correctness)

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse of Principal Appellant / Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Daughter / Appellant (subject of Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the availability and viability of an Internal Flight Alternative in Cali, Colombia
  2. 2 Whether new evidence filed after perfection of the appeal should be admitted under RAD Rule 29 and s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether credibility findings were determinative and whether mental health evidence negates the reasonableness of the IFA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD: objective country evidence and the facts show no serious possibility of persecution or serious harm in Cali and relocation there is not objectively unreasonable for these Appellants; the RPD therefore lawfully concluded a viable IFA exists in Cali and the appeal is dismissed. New evidence was authorized for filing under Rule 29 and certain items were admitted but do not alter the IFA conclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a)

Orders

  • Rule 29 application granted to file Items 1-16 following perfection of the appeal
  • Item 1 treated as submissions (affidavit); Items 3,4,5 excluded as not meeting s.110(4) criteria; Items 2,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 and 16 admitted as new evidence where indicated