VC0-02118

VC0-02118

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly conducted the s.96 analysis, properly excluded the post‑decision affidavit as irrelevant to the proposed IFA, and correctly applied the Rasaratnam/Thirunavukkarasu two‑pronged IFA test to find Merida a viable internal flight alternative; appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that agents of harm would pursue them to Merida or that relocation there would be unreasonable, and therefore did not establish entitlement to protection under s.96 or s.97 IRPA.

Citation
VC0-02118
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From RPD Rejection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Section 96 IRPA (convention Refugee), Section 97 IRPA (person in Need of Protection), Admissibility of New Evidence, Gender Based Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Protection Internal Flight Alternative Section 96 IRPA (convention Refugee) Section 97 IRPA (person in Need of Protection) Admissibility of New Evidence Gender Based Persecution

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From RPD Rejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence filed post‑RPD was admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether RPD conducted proper s.96 analysis for gender‑based persecution
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (Merida, Yucatan) exists under Rasaratnam/Thirunavukkarasu test

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly conducted the s.96 analysis, properly excluded the post‑decision affidavit as irrelevant to the proposed IFA, and correctly applied the Rasaratnam/Thirunavukkarasu two‑pronged IFA test to find Merida a viable internal flight alternative; appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that agents of harm would pursue them to Merida or that relocation there would be unreasonable, and therefore did not establish entitlement to protection under s.96 or s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act