TB9-10684

TB9-10684

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because on independent review the appellants did not establish a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFAs and those IFAs were reasonable given the appellants' personal circumstances; the principal appellant's unexplained omission of the alleged 2017 attack undermined credibility on that incident but did not require overturning other findings; no new evidence was filed to trigger an oral hearing.

Citation
TB9-10684
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, Convention Refugee Status, Persons in Need of Protection, Jurisprudential Guide Application
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings Convention Refugee Status Persons in Need of Protection Jurisprudential Guide Application

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the principal appellant's credibility regarding the alleged March 2017 attack undermines the claim
  3. 3 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) on the balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because on independent review the appellants did not establish a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFAs and those IFAs were reasonable given the appellants' personal circumstances; the principal appellant's unexplained omission of the alleged 2017 attack undermined credibility on that incident but did not require overturning other findings; no new evidence was filed to trigger an oral hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • No oral hearing ordered due to absence of new evidence