MB7-19064

MB7-19064

The RPD erred by misapprehending evidence and improperly discounting a notarized attestation corroborating that Los Urabeños approached the PA's sister in 2017; objective country evidence and the appellants' ongoing unresolved land restitution claims demonstrate Los Urabeños' national reach and special targeting of land claimants, making relocation to Florencia an unreasonable Internal Flight Alternative; on a balance of probabilities the appellants face a personalized risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment from Los Urabeños and therefore are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
MB7-19064
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside; appellants found to be persons in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1)(b) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, State Protection, Land Restitution Claims, Need for Protection Under S.97(1)(b) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence State Protection +2 more

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings regarding ongoing risk and corroborating attestation
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding a viable Internal Flight Alternative in Florencia, Caquetá
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are persons in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1)(b) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred by misapprehending evidence and improperly discounting a notarized attestation corroborating that Los Urabeños approached the PA's sister in 2017; objective country evidence and the appellants' ongoing unresolved land restitution claims demonstrate Los Urabeños' national reach and special targeting of land claimants, making relocation to Florencia an unreasonable Internal Flight Alternative; on a balance of probabilities the appellants face a personalized risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment from Los Urabeños and therefore are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside; appellants found to be persons in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1)(b) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated September 11, 2017 set aside