TC0-01877

TC0-01877

The RPD erred in its assessment of the first prong of the IFA test by failing to account for evidence that the Principal Appellant's family had state connections and sufficient means and motivation to locate and harm the Appellants; on an independent review the Appellants' evidence is credible on a balance of probabilities, there is a nexus to Convention grounds (religion and membership in a particular social group), state protection is unavailable, no viable IFA exists, and therefore the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
TC0-01877
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Adult Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (rad Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted with RAD determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b).
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Religious Persecution, Family Based Persecution, Female Genital Mutilation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Protection Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee State Protection Credibility Assessment Religious Persecution +2 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Adult Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (rad Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the first prong of the internal flight alternative test
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to consider the totality of the evidence
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to articulate reasons for rejecting the Appellants' evidence and credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in its assessment of the first prong of the IFA test by failing to account for evidence that the Principal Appellant's family had state connections and sufficient means and motivation to locate and harm the Appellants; on an independent review the Appellants' evidence is credible on a balance of probabilities, there is a nexus to Convention grounds (religion and membership in a particular social group), state protection is unavailable, no viable IFA exists, and therefore the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted with RAD determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Orders

  • Set aside the RPD determination dated December 16, 2019
  • Substitute RAD determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees