TC0-10027

TC0-10027

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly found that the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Alexandria: the evidence did not show the agent of persecution had the demonstrated means, motivation or network to locate them there, the new evidence was either not new or not determinative, and the threshold for finding relocation unduly harsh was not met, therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TC0-10027
Parties
Applicant Principal Appellant: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Applicant Associate Appellant: Associate Appellant (name redacted); Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, New Evidence Admission, Credibility Assessment, Oral Hearing Request, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative New Evidence Admission Credibility Assessment Oral Hearing Request Convention Refugee Determination

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Applicant Principal Appellant

Associate Appellant (name redacted)

Applicant Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Alexandria
  2. 2 Whether new evidence meets statutory requirements and Singh/Raza factors for admission
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing is warranted under subsection 110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly found that the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Alexandria: the evidence did not show the agent of persecution had the demonstrated means, motivation or network to locate them there, the new evidence was either not new or not determinative, and the threshold for finding relocation unduly harsh was not met, therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection