VC0-00152

VC0-00152

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants are credible but failed to rebut the IFA because objective evidence showed no CJNG presence or infrastructure in Yucatán to locate them and Mérida is a low‑risk area where the appellants could reasonably relocate given their skills; therefore both prongs of the IFA test are satisfied and the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
VC0-00152
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review) / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Risk of Persecution, Extortion by Organized Crime, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Public International Law Criminal Law (organized Crime) Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Risk of Persecution Extortion by Organized Crime +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review) / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Mérida
  2. 2 Whether the CJNG cartel has the means and motivation to locate the appellants in Mérida
  3. 3 Whether relocation to Mérida would be unreasonable in all the circumstances of the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants are credible but failed to rebut the IFA because objective evidence showed no CJNG presence or infrastructure in Yucatán to locate them and Mérida is a low‑risk area where the appellants could reasonably relocate given their skills; therefore both prongs of the IFA test are satisfied and the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated December 2, 2019 is confirmed: the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.