VB8-00591

VB8-00591

The RAD affirmed the RPD: appellants failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life in Kandy and relocation to Kandy was objectively reasonable given the localized nature of the risk in Colombo, lack of evidence linking attacks to agents with reach to Kandy, appellants' membership of the ethnic/religious majority, language and employment prospects, and the appellants' prior safe returns; therefore a viable IFA exists and the claims fail under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
VB8-00591
Parties
Principal Appellant: Principal Appellant (redacted); Associate Appellant: Associate Appellant (redacted); Minor Appellant: Minor Appellant (redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision Issued Following RAD Hearing/review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Risk Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (redacted)

Principal Appellant

Associate Appellant (redacted)

Associate Appellant

Minor Appellant (redacted)

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision Issued Following RAD Hearing/review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Kandy for the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings and in failing to afford weight to submitted evidence
  3. 3 Whether the appellants qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD: appellants failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life in Kandy and relocation to Kandy was objectively reasonable given the localized nature of the risk in Colombo, lack of evidence linking attacks to agents with reach to Kandy, appellants' membership of the ethnic/religious majority, language and employment prospects, and the appellants' prior safe returns; therefore a viable IFA exists and the claims fail under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the Refugee Protection Division decision of January 16, 2018 is confirmed: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA