MC0-08418

MC0-08418

The appeal is dismissed because, on independent review, the RPD did not err: the appellant was found credible but did not establish that her attackers had the capacity or motivation to find her in Carrefour or XXXX or that relocation would jeopardize life or safety, Guideline 4 was considered adequately in context, and the new affidavit did not meet IRPA s.110(4) admissibility requirements.

Citation
MC0-08418
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility and Personalized Risk, Guideline 4 (violence Against Women), Admission of New Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility and Personalized Risk Guideline 4 (violence Against Women) Admission of New Evidence 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant faces a personalized risk of persecution
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Carrefour or XXXX
  3. 3 Whether the RAD properly applied Guideline 4 regarding violence against women

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because, on independent review, the RPD did not err: the appellant was found credible but did not establish that her attackers had the capacity or motivation to find her in Carrefour or XXXX or that relocation would jeopardize life or safety, Guideline 4 was considered adequately in context, and the new affidavit did not meet IRPA s.110(4) admissibility requirements.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD determinations confirmed that the principal appellant and her minor children are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • Application to admit new affidavit denied as not meeting IRPA s.110(4) criteria