MC2-10686

MC2-10686

On the balance of probabilities the appellants failed to show that the agents of harm had both the ability and present motivation to locate and persecute them in Medellín and they failed to show that relocation there would be objectively unreasonable; therefore an internal flight alternative existed and the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MC2-10686
Parties
Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Risk Assessment, Credibility and Evidence Evaluation, State Protection and Non‑state Actors
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Protection Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Risk Assessment Credibility and Evidence Evaluation State Protection and Non‑state Actors

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Medellín
  2. 2 Whether agents of harm had the ability to locate and the motivation to pursue the appellants
  3. 3 Whether the risk meets the threshold under subsection 97(1) and constitutes persecution or danger of torture

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the appellants failed to show that the agents of harm had both the ability and present motivation to locate and persecute them in Medellín and they failed to show that relocation there would be objectively unreasonable; therefore an internal flight alternative existed and the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection