VB9-10079

VB9-10079

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection and failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that they could not safely relocate to Arica; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
VB9-10079
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Principal Appellant's Son: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed — appellants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility Findings, Burden and Standard of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Credibility Findings Burden and Standard of Proof

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant's Son

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists (Arica)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection and failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that they could not safely relocate to Arica; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed — appellants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • No referral back to the RPD under section 111(1)(c) IRPA