VB5-01092

VB5-01092

The RAD confirmed the RPD because appellants failed to meet their burden to show no safe and reasonable IFA in Bogota: evidence established agents of harm were likely common local criminals whose threat was limited to the appellants' hometown, the appellants did not demonstrate sufficient notoriety or motivation of persecutors to locate them in Bogota, the new evidence was admissible but did not raise a central credibility issue warranting an oral hearing, and therefore the RPD's factual findings and IFA conclusion stand.

Citation
VB5-01092
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Determination) / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, New Evidence (s.110(4)), Oral Hearing Threshold (s.110(6)), Standard of Review, Section 96, Section 97
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment New Evidence (s.110(4)) Oral Hearing Threshold (s.110(6)) Standard of Review +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Determination) / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether agents of harm are members of organized groups (FARC/Urabenos) or local criminals
  2. 2 whether RPD failed to assess claim under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 whether a safe and reasonable Internal Flight Alternative (Bogota) exists

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because appellants failed to meet their burden to show no safe and reasonable IFA in Bogota: evidence established agents of harm were likely common local criminals whose threat was limited to the appellants' hometown, the appellants did not demonstrate sufficient notoriety or motivation of persecutors to locate them in Bogota, the new evidence was admissible but did not raise a central credibility issue warranting an oral hearing, and therefore the RPD's factual findings and IFA conclusion stand.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act