MB9-05505

MB9-05505

The RPD erred in its analysis of the second prong of the IFA test by relying on irrelevant family/residence facts and failing to consider the principal appellant's demonstrated inability to obtain employment outside gang‑controlled urban areas and his role as family provider; given high unemployment, low rural incomes and the appellant's skillset, relocation to the suggested IFA would be unduly harsh and unreasonable. Therefore the RAD set aside the RPD decision and found the appellants are persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-05505
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Reasons and Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and determines appellants are persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Protection Status, Admissibility of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Protection Status Admissibility of 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Reasons and Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the identified internal flight alternative (IFA) was reasonable (second prong)
  2. 2 Whether the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) erred in its IFA analysis
  3. 3 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in its analysis of the second prong of the IFA test by relying on irrelevant family/residence facts and failing to consider the principal appellant's demonstrated inability to obtain employment outside gang‑controlled urban areas and his role as family provider; given high unemployment, low rural incomes and the appellant's skillset, relocation to the suggested IFA would be unduly harsh and unreasonable. Therefore the RAD set aside the RPD decision and found the appellants are persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and determines appellants are persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • RPD decision set aside and substituted: appellants are persons in need of protection (per IRPA paragraph 111(1)(b))
  • Appeal allowed