VC0-02463

VC0-02463

The RPD mis-weighed evidence on the motivation prong of the IFA test; given J.'s recent conduct, cartel capabilities in tracking and vengeance, and the objective country information showing inadequate state protection, the appellants would face a risk to life in Merida and have no reasonable expectation of protection, so the IFA fails and the RAD correctly substitutes the RPD decision finding the appellants persons in need of protection.

Citation
VC0-02463
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision Substitution of RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted: Appellants found to be persons in need of protection pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b).
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Substitution Under IRPA S.111(1)(b)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Protection Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Substitution Under IRPA S.111(1)(b)

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision Substitution of RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Merida
  2. 2 Whether appellants would face a risk to life if returned to Mexico
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection is available in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD mis-weighed evidence on the motivation prong of the IFA test; given J.'s recent conduct, cartel capabilities in tracking and vengeance, and the objective country information showing inadequate state protection, the appellants would face a risk to life in Merida and have no reasonable expectation of protection, so the IFA fails and the RAD correctly substitutes the RPD decision finding the appellants persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted: Appellants found to be persons in need of protection pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Orders

  • Set aside the RPD determination and substitute a finding that the Appellants are persons in need of protection pursuant to Immigration and Refugee Protection Act s.111(1)(b).