TB9-26857

TB9-26857

Admitted post‑decision evidence showed active conflict, restricted movement, killings and severe shortages in Mekelle such that, under the second prong of the IFA test, relocation there would be unreasonable for the Principal Appellant; state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming; on credibility and objective risk the Principal Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution as a female at risk and is therefore a Convention refugee, whereas the Minor Appellants' claims against the USA remain unsubstantiated and are correctly dismissed.

Citation
TB9-26857
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Reviewed by Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted Decision)
Outcome
Principal Appellant appeal allowed and substituted decision that Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee; Minor Appellants appeals dismissed and RPD decision confirmed for minors.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Convention Refugee Determination, Admission of New Evidence (rule 29), State Protection, Gender Based Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Convention Refugee Determination Admission of New Evidence (rule 29) State Protection 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Reviewed by Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Rule 29 evidence is admissible
  2. 2 Whether Mekelle (Tigray) is a viable internal flight alternative under the two‑prong test
  3. 3 Whether state protection would be reasonably forthcoming

Ratio Decidendi

Admitted post‑decision evidence showed active conflict, restricted movement, killings and severe shortages in Mekelle such that, under the second prong of the IFA test, relocation there would be unreasonable for the Principal Appellant; state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming; on credibility and objective risk the Principal Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution as a female at risk and is therefore a Convention refugee, whereas the Minor Appellants' claims against the USA remain unsubstantiated and are correctly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Principal Appellant appeal allowed and substituted decision that Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee; Minor Appellants appeals dismissed and RPD decision confirmed for minors.

Orders

  • Rule 29 application allowed and documents admitted into the appeal record
  • Set aside the RPD determination in respect of the Principal Appellant and substitute a determination that the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA