MB9-11475

MB9-11475

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the three proffered documents were reasonably available, submitted late and untranslated contrary to the agreed deadline and thus did not meet s.110(4) IRPA; the RPD properly assessed the NDP and other evidence and reasonably concluded that an internal flight alternative existed and the risk was localized/generalized; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB9-11475
Parties
Appellant (person in Cause): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship of Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision Disposing of Appeal (rad Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Generalized Risk, Admissibility of New Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Generalized Risk Admissibility of New Evidence Procedural Fairness Documentary Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (person in Cause)

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship of Canada

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision Disposing of Appeal (rad Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its interpretation and application of National Documentation Package material
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the three proffered documents were reasonably available, submitted late and untranslated contrary to the agreed deadline and thus did not meet s.110(4) IRPA; the RPD properly assessed the NDP and other evidence and reasonably concluded that an internal flight alternative existed and the risk was localized/generalized; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.