TB8-19181

TB8-19181

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to adduce reliable evidence linking their extortion to the alleged persecutory agents, failed to establish a well-founded fear for the Minor Appellants in the USA, and failed to discharge the burden to show that internal flight alternatives in Mexico (Mexico City, Cancun, Acapulco) were not viable; new evidence was either available before the RPD or was general and not probative, and therefore the RPD's finding that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-19181
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: ChXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms the RPD determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Extortion, Admissibility of New Evidence, Convention Refugee Definition, Burden of Proof, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law International Protection Internal Flight Alternative Extortion Admissibility of New Evidence Convention Refugee Definition +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 XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

ChXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) and applicable jurisprudence
  2. 2 Whether Minor Appellants face a risk of persecution or serious harm in the United States
  3. 3 Whether adult Appellants were persecuted/extorted by Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to adduce reliable evidence linking their extortion to the alleged persecutory agents, failed to establish a well-founded fear for the Minor Appellants in the USA, and failed to discharge the burden to show that internal flight alternatives in Mexico (Mexico City, Cancun, Acapulco) were not viable; new evidence was either available before the RPD or was general and not probative, and therefore the RPD's finding that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms the RPD determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.