TB9-21192

TB9-21192

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on independent review, the appellants failed both prongs of the Rasaratnam IFA test: there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture, death or cruel treatment in Mérida given the evidence that incidents were isolated and there is no demonstrated means or motive allowing agents of harm to locate them there, and it would not be objectively unreasonable for the appellants to relocate to Mérida; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB9-21192
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Division Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review, Onus of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Standard of Review Onus of Proof

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (son)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Division Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mérida is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on independent review, the appellants failed both prongs of the Rasaratnam IFA test: there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture, death or cruel treatment in Mérida given the evidence that incidents were isolated and there is no demonstrated means or motive allowing agents of harm to locate them there, and it would not be objectively unreasonable for the appellants to relocate to Mérida; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Refugee Protection Division decision dated July 16, 2019 confirmed