MC0-02681

MC0-02681

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to prove both prongs of the IFA test on a balance of probabilities: agents of persecution lacked demonstrated interest or ability to locate them in the proposed IFAs and the proposed IFAs were not objectively unreasonable given the appellants' personal circumstances (employment history, language, family relocation potential); therefore the RPD's conclusion that protection was not required was correct and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
MC0-02681
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Minor Daughter: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Minor Son: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Gender Related Persecution, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Gender Related Persecution 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant Minor Daughter

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant Minor Son

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Yucatán or Campeche
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in drawing a negative credibility inference regarding the principal appellant's account of an attempted kidnapping
  3. 3 Whether Guideline 4 (women/gender‑related persecution) was properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to prove both prongs of the IFA test on a balance of probabilities: agents of persecution lacked demonstrated interest or ability to locate them in the proposed IFAs and the proposed IFAs were not objectively unreasonable given the appellants' personal circumstances (employment history, language, family relocation potential); therefore the RPD's conclusion that protection was not required was correct and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Refugee Appeal Division confirms Refugee Protection Division decision dated January 10, 2020
  • Appeal is dismissed