TB7-11389

TB7-11389

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD confirmed the RPD's finding that the Appellants have a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative in Ensenada, that the proposed new evidence is inadmissible under subsection 110(4) IRPA, and therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-11389
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Common Law Spouse / Co‑appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Redetermination / Redetermination Before the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Following RPD Refusal and Federal Court Remittal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Convention Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Convention Refugee Definition Person in Need of Protection Admissibility 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Common Law Spouse / Co‑appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Redetermination / Redetermination Before the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Following RPD Refusal and Federal Court Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants face a risk linked to a Convention ground or a generalized criminal risk
  2. 2 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Ensenada, Baja California
  3. 3 Whether proposed new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD confirmed the RPD's finding that the Appellants have a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative in Ensenada, that the proposed new evidence is inadmissible under subsection 110(4) IRPA, and therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; RPD determination confirmed