VB5-00468

VB5-00468

The RAD refused to admit the proffered new evidence because the appellants failed to comply with RAD Rules and did not satisfy s.110(4); applying the correctness standard and conducting an independent review, the RAD agreed with the RPD that the appellants could safely relocate to Kiev because the municipal contract would likely lead only to civil remedies, residence registration does not prohibit relocation, and Kiev provides state protection and a reduced risk of persecution; therefore a viable IFA exists and the appeals fail under sections 96 and 97 of the Act.

Citation
VB5-00468
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (final Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Viability of Internal Flight Alternative)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4), Standard of Review, Foreign Law Interpretation, Registration of Residence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4) Standard of Review Foreign Law Interpretation +1 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (final Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Viability of Internal Flight Alternative)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Kiev
  2. 2 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal meets the s.110(4) IRPA threshold and is admissible
  3. 3 Whether foreign law or municipal contract would expose the appellant to criminal sanctions preventing relocation

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD refused to admit the proffered new evidence because the appellants failed to comply with RAD Rules and did not satisfy s.110(4); applying the correctness standard and conducting an independent review, the RAD agreed with the RPD that the appellants could safely relocate to Kiev because the municipal contract would likely lead only to civil remedies, residence registration does not prohibit relocation, and Kiev provides state protection and a reduced risk of persecution; therefore a viable IFA exists and the appeals fail under sections 96 and 97 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • New evidence submitted on appeal rejected as not meeting s.110(4) IRPA and for noncompliance with RAD Rules
  • No hearing under s.110(6) IRPA is required