VB9-09744

VB9-09744

The RAD allowed the appeals because the RPD erred in finding Mexicali a viable IFA: documentary and new evidence establish that Los Zetas have both the means and the motivation to locate and target the Principal Appellant and his family throughout Mexico (including Mexicali); state protection is unlikely; the RPD's implausibility finding was inconsistent with documentary evidence and was rebutted by credible new evidence; therefore the RAD substituted a determination that the Appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
VB9-09744
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
10 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Determination on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its determination that the Appellants are persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admission of New Evidence, Standard of Review, State Protection, Person in Need of Protection Vs Convention Refugee
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admission of New Evidence Standard of Review State Protection Person in Need of Protection Vs Convention Refugee

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
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 Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Determination on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Zetas have the motivation to search for the Principal Appellant in the proposed internal flight alternative (Mexicali)
  2. 2 Whether Mexicali is a reasonable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  3. 3 Whether new evidence on appeal should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeals because the RPD erred in finding Mexicali a viable IFA: documentary and new evidence establish that Los Zetas have both the means and the motivation to locate and target the Principal Appellant and his family throughout Mexico (including Mexicali); state protection is unlikely; the RPD's implausibility finding was inconsistent with documentary evidence and was rebutted by credible new evidence; therefore the RAD substituted a determination that the Appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its determination that the Appellants are persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes its determination that the Appellants are persons in need of protection in accordance with section 97 of the IRPA.
  • New evidence: three documents admitted on appeal and three documents rejected.