VC0-02360

VC0-02360

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision dismissing the refugee claim because the appellants failed to discharge the burden of showing Bucharest was not a viable internal flight alternative: new evidence was inadmissible as it predated the RPD decision and was reasonably available, the criminal group lacked motivation or demonstrable ability to locate the appellants in Bucharest, and the male minor's alleged needs did not amount to persecution or make relocation unduly harsh; the procedural fairness error regarding Caransebes was not fatal because Bucharest IFA was upheld.

Citation
VC0-02360
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision dated March 9, 2020 confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Protection Status Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Protection Status Determination

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding internal flight alternatives (IFAs) in Bucharest and Caransebes
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was breached by referencing Caransebes when Craiova was discussed

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision dismissing the refugee claim because the appellants failed to discharge the burden of showing Bucharest was not a viable internal flight alternative: new evidence was inadmissible as it predated the RPD decision and was reasonably available, the criminal group lacked motivation or demonstrable ability to locate the appellants in Bucharest, and the male minor's alleged needs did not amount to persecution or make relocation unduly harsh; the procedural fairness error regarding Caransebes was not fatal because Bucharest IFA was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision dated March 9, 2020 confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • New evidence declined as inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and proceeding without an oral hearing upheld