MC0-09767

MC0-09767

The RAD concluded that the appellants failed to establish that Islamabad or Lahore are unsafe or unreasonably harsh IFAs, that the admitted post‑RPD COVID‑19 media evidence did not render the IFAs inaccessible or raise a serious issue requiring an oral hearing, and therefore the RPD's determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed (s.111(1)(a) IRPA).

Citation
MC0-09767
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision of Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Admission of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Test, Convention Refugee Determination, COVID 19 and Relocation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Public Health Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Admission of New Evidence Oral Hearing Test +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision of Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants qualify as Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether internal flight alternatives (Islamabad or Lahore) are safe and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded that the appellants failed to establish that Islamabad or Lahore are unsafe or unreasonably harsh IFAs, that the admitted post‑RPD COVID‑19 media evidence did not render the IFAs inaccessible or raise a serious issue requiring an oral hearing, and therefore the RPD's determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed (s.111(1)(a) IRPA).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act