MC1-01560

MC1-01560

The appeal is dismissed because, on a balance of probabilities, the appellants failed to prove a real and targeted risk in the proposed internal flight alternative locations and failed to show that relocation to those cities would be objectively unreasonable; newly submitted country‑condition articles were admitted but did not alter credibility or the IFA analysis; therefore the RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
MC1-01560
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (associate): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (associate): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal (rad Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Requirement
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Determination Credibility Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Requirement

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (associate)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (associate)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal (rad Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for appellants
  3. 3 Whether newly tendered country condition evidence should be admitted and affects credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because, on a balance of probabilities, the appellants failed to prove a real and targeted risk in the proposed internal flight alternative locations and failed to show that relocation to those cities would be objectively unreasonable; newly submitted country‑condition articles were admitted but did not alter credibility or the IFA analysis; therefore the RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No oral hearing required