MB9-28544

MB9-28544

The RAD independently reviewed the record using the correctness standard, found Abuja was not a viable internal flight alternative because the evidence established a personalized risk to the appellants there and that state protection was ineffective, rejected the proffered medical test results as irrelevant new evidence, denied an oral hearing, and substituted the RPD decision by finding the appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.

Citation
MB9-28544
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final RAD Decision Substituting RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeals allowed; substituted decision that appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Protection Under Section 97 IRPA, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Protection Under Section 97 IRPA Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor (male)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final RAD Decision Substituting RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Abuja is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the new medical evidence is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD independently reviewed the record using the correctness standard, found Abuja was not a viable internal flight alternative because the evidence established a personalized risk to the appellants there and that state protection was ineffective, rejected the proffered medical test results as irrelevant new evidence, denied an oral hearing, and substituted the RPD decision by finding the appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; substituted decision that appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Appeals allowed and RPD decision set aside; substituted decision that appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  • New medical evidence rejected as inadmissible and irrelevant