MB9-19643

MB9-19643

Although the appellants' account was found credible, the RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the appellant failed to prove, on the applicable standards, that (1) the agents of harm targeted her for a Convention ground (section 96) rather than for economic/extortion reasons, and (2) the proposed internal flight alternatives were unreasonable in all the circumstances; new evidence (brothers' letters) was admissible but insufficient to rebut the IFA finding, so the RPD's determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
MB9-19643
Parties
Principal Appellant and Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From RPD Rejection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Gender‑related Persecution, Section 96 IRPA, New Evidence Admissibility, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Gender‑related Persecution Section 96 IRPA New Evidence Admissibility 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant and Designated Representative

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From RPD Rejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred by failing to assess claims under section 96 (membership in the social group of women)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists (both prongs)
  3. 3 Whether new evidence (letters) should be admitted and affects the IFA analysis

Ratio Decidendi

Although the appellants' account was found credible, the RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the appellant failed to prove, on the applicable standards, that (1) the agents of harm targeted her for a Convention ground (section 96) rather than for economic/extortion reasons, and (2) the proposed internal flight alternatives were unreasonable in all the circumstances; new evidence (brothers' letters) was admissible but insufficient to rebut the IFA finding, so the RPD's determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to IRPA paragraph 111(1)(a) the RAD confirms the RPD's determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection