TC0-03869

TC0-03869

The RPD erred by relying on assumptions that Hyderabad was safe and by ignoring evidence that the Taliban had located and attacked the appellants across Pakistan; given the demonstrated means and motivation of the Taliban and the appellants' failed prior IFA attempts, there is a serious possibility of persecution and no adequate state protection, so the appellants are Convention refugees and the RAD substitutes its own determination pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Citation
TC0-03869
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision to Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside; appellants found to be Convention refugees and substituted determination entered
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, State Protection, Admissibility of Evidence, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status State Protection Admissibility of Evidence Credibility Assessment

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellants

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision to Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Hyderabad
  2. 2 Whether the appellants face a serious possibility of persecution with nexus to political opinion
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection is available to the appellants in Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred by relying on assumptions that Hyderabad was safe and by ignoring evidence that the Taliban had located and attacked the appellants across Pakistan; given the demonstrated means and motivation of the Taliban and the appellants' failed prior IFA attempts, there is a serious possibility of persecution and no adequate state protection, so the appellants are Convention refugees and the RAD substitutes its own determination pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside; appellants found to be Convention refugees and substituted determination entered

Orders

  • Set aside the RPD determination and substitute a determination that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b)
  • Proposed new evidence (map and media articles) inadmissible under IRPA s.110(4)