TB6-00824

TB6-00824

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellants provided no new evidence, their allegations of bias and interpreter failure were unsupported, and on a balance of probabilities the Appellants failed to rebut the RPD finding that a viable internal flight alternative existed in Al Bahharah; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB6-00824
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Secondary Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision on RPD Record
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Bias and Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Interpretation and Language Assistance, Standard of Review, Natural Justice
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Bias and Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Interpretation and Language Assistance +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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision on RPD Record

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its internal flight alternative (IFA) analysis
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in assessing credibility of the Appellants
  3. 3 Whether the RPD's conduct amounted to a reasonable apprehension of bias

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellants provided no new evidence, their allegations of bias and interpreter failure were unsupported, and on a balance of probabilities the Appellants failed to rebut the RPD finding that a viable internal flight alternative existed in Al Bahharah; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • Request for oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA denied