TB8-01749

TB8-01749

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants failed to discharge the burden to show Kathmandu was not a viable IFA: objective evidence and admitted new material demonstrated limited reach of the local Biplav Maoists, effective state protection in Kathmandu, and insufficient proof that agents could locate or persecute the Appellants there; therefore the refugee claim fails.

Citation
TB8-01749
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons Confirming Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Oral Hearing Request (s.110(6) Irpa), State Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Oral Hearing Request (s.110(6) Irpa) State Protection Standard of Review

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons Confirming Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Kathmandu is a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) for the Appellants
  2. 2 Admissibility of documentary evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing is required under subsection 110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants failed to discharge the burden to show Kathmandu was not a viable IFA: objective evidence and admitted new material demonstrated limited reach of the local Biplav Maoists, effective state protection in Kathmandu, and insufficient proof that agents could locate or persecute the Appellants there; therefore the refugee claim fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
  • New evidence partially admitted (articles arising after the RPD rejection); other documents arising before rejection not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA; no oral hearing granted under s.110(6) IRPA.