TB5-01651

TB5-01651

Applying the correctness standard the RAD found appellants failed to present evidence identifying the perpetrators as FARC, the new documents were either not admissible or of little probative weight, and given the vagueness of the threats and lack of perpetrator identity a realistic and reasonable IFA existed in Cartagena or Bogota; accordingly the RPD's refusal of refugee protection was confirmed.

Citation
TB5-01651
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (redetermination) / RAD Redetermination Following Federal Court Return; Appeal From RPD Decision Dated January 14, 2015
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Standard of Review, Admissibility of New Evidence, Identification of Agents of Persecution (farc)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Standard of Review Admissibility of New Evidence Identification of Agents of Persecution (farc)

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (redetermination) / RAD Redetermination Following Federal Court Return; Appeal From RPD Decision Dated January 14, 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RAD should apply correctness standard to RPD findings
  2. 2 Admissibility and weight of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether appellants identified the agents of persecution as FARC

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the correctness standard the RAD found appellants failed to present evidence identifying the perpetrators as FARC, the new documents were either not admissible or of little probative weight, and given the vagueness of the threats and lack of perpetrator identity a realistic and reasonable IFA existed in Cartagena or Bogota; accordingly the RPD's refusal of refugee protection was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms the RPD decision dated January 14, 2015.