MB9-00716

MB9-00716

RAD concluded the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the principal appellant and her three minor children from Mexico, found the key allegations credible on the balance of probabilities, determined state protection in Mexico was inadequate and no internal flight alternative was available, and therefore set aside the RPD decision in part and substituted that the principal and three named minors are Convention refugees under s96 IRPA; the RAD confirmed the RPD's finding that the US‑citizen minor is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-00716
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor, US Citizen): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision Under Irpa) / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted Determination)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; RPD determination set aside in part and substituted as to four appellants; RPD determination confirmed as to one US‑citizen minor
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness, New Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Credibility Assessment State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor, US Citizen)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision Under Irpa) / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing credibility of appellants from Mexico
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative was available in Mexico
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mexico was adequate

Ratio Decidendi

RAD concluded the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the principal appellant and her three minor children from Mexico, found the key allegations credible on the balance of probabilities, determined state protection in Mexico was inadequate and no internal flight alternative was available, and therefore set aside the RPD decision in part and substituted that the principal and three named minors are Convention refugees under s96 IRPA; the RAD confirmed the RPD's finding that the US‑citizen minor is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; RPD determination set aside in part and substituted as to four appellants; RPD determination confirmed as to one US‑citizen minor

Orders

  • Set aside the RPD determination in part and substitute that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  • Confirm the RPD determination that XXXX XXXX XXXX is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA and is not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA