MC2-07553

MC2-07553

Appellants are credible but failed, on the balance of probabilities, to establish a prospective risk in the proposed internal flight alternative cities because objective evidence and facts demonstrate the principal agents of harm lack ongoing motivation to locate them outside their hometown; relocation to Mérida or Campeche is not objectively unreasonable, therefore the RPD's rejection of refugee protection and person-in-need-of-protection claims is confirmed.

Citation
MC2-07553
Parties
Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Appellants: Robin Dejardin; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Panel: Bianca Eleonora Suciu; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Burden of Proof, Best Interests of the Child, Nexus to Convention, Relocation Reasonableness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Burden of Proof Best Interests of the Child Nexus to Convention +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Robin Dejardin

Counsel for Appellants

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Bianca Eleonora Suciu

Panel

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants face a prospective risk in proposed internal flight alternative cities (Mérida and Campeche)
  2. 2 Whether appellants established nexus to a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether RPD applied correct burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants are credible but failed, on the balance of probabilities, to establish a prospective risk in the proposed internal flight alternative cities because objective evidence and facts demonstrate the principal agents of harm lack ongoing motivation to locate them outside their hometown; relocation to Mérida or Campeche is not objectively unreasonable, therefore the RPD's rejection of refugee protection and person-in-need-of-protection claims is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated April 25, 2022 is confirmed