TC0-02245

TC0-02245

The RAD allowed the appeal because, on balance of probabilities, the principal appellant had a credible profile as a social leader whose prominence exposed him and his family to a real risk from armed groups and the proposed internal flight alternatives (Barranquilla and Cartagena) were not safe; admitted post‑perfection evidence (certain news reports, an affidavit and an email) supported the contextual risk analysis but did not raise a credibility issue sufficient to trigger an oral hearing; accordingly the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the appellants are persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
TC0-02245
Parties
Principal Appellant: Principal Appellant (anonymous); Associate Appellant: Associate Appellant (spouse) (anonymous); Minor Appellant: Minor Appellant 1 (anonymous); Minor Appellant: Minor Appellant 2 (anonymous)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (substitution Under S.111(1)(b) Irpa)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted — appellants found to be persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence (rule 29 and S.110(4)), Designation as Social Leader/human Rights Defender, Request for Oral Hearing (s.110(6))
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment State Protection Admissibility of New Evidence (rule 29 and S.110(4)) Designation as Social Leader/human Rights Defender +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (anonymous)

Principal Appellant

Associate Appellant (spouse) (anonymous)

Associate Appellant

Minor Appellant 1 (anonymous)

Minor Appellant

Minor Appellant 2 (anonymous)

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (substitution Under S.111(1)(b) Irpa)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are credible
  2. 2 Whether Barranquilla or Cartagena are viable internal flight alternatives (IFA)
  3. 3 Whether the principal appellant qualifies as a social leader and therefore faces risk

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because, on balance of probabilities, the principal appellant had a credible profile as a social leader whose prominence exposed him and his family to a real risk from armed groups and the proposed internal flight alternatives (Barranquilla and Cartagena) were not safe; admitted post‑perfection evidence (certain news reports, an affidavit and an email) supported the contextual risk analysis but did not raise a credibility issue sufficient to trigger an oral hearing; accordingly the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the appellants are persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted — appellants found to be persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division set aside