TC1-00032

TC1-00032

On an independent review of the record and on a balance of probabilities the RPD correctly found the Appellants have a viable IFA in Cabo San Lucas, Mérida, and Campeche because the alleged agents lacked the motivation and did not demonstrate the means to locate the Appellants there, and the Appellants failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to show the IFAs were unsafe or unreasonable; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
TC1-00032
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, New Evidence on Appeal, Burden of Proof, Credibility, Remittal/substitution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative New Evidence on Appeal Burden of Proof Credibility Remittal/substitution

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Viability of an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Cabo San Lucas, Mérida, and Campeche, Mexico
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding the Principal Appellant's allegations had changed
  3. 3 Whether the RPD ignored evidence of a similarly situated individual

Ratio Decidendi

On an independent review of the record and on a balance of probabilities the RPD correctly found the Appellants have a viable IFA in Cabo San Lucas, Mérida, and Campeche because the alleged agents lacked the motivation and did not demonstrate the means to locate the Appellants there, and the Appellants failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to show the IFAs were unsafe or unreasonable; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection