VB9-00613

VB9-00613

The RAD dismissed the appeal because it found, on a balance of probabilities, that the risk to the appellant was localized to his home area and he failed to prove the agents of persecution had the motivation or means to find him in Lahore or elsewhere in Pakistan; relocation to Lahore was realistic and not unduly harsh given his age, language, work experience and family support, and thus a viable internal flight alternative existed meaning the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
VB9-00613
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Rejection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, New Evidence Admission, Credibility Findings, Convention Refugee Status, Section 97 Analysis
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative New Evidence Admission Credibility Findings Convention Refugee Status Section 97 Analysis

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister of Immigration

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Rejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable internal flight alternative exists in Lahore
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether new evidence should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because it found, on a balance of probabilities, that the risk to the appellant was localized to his home area and he failed to prove the agents of persecution had the motivation or means to find him in Lahore or elsewhere in Pakistan; relocation to Lahore was realistic and not unduly harsh given his age, language, work experience and family support, and thus a viable internal flight alternative existed meaning the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • Imam's letter dated February 20, 2019 admitted under subsection 110(4) IRPA