TB5-13831

TB5-13831

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to discharge the burden to show that Islamabad was not a viable IFA: there was no persuasive evidence that a blasphemy charge had been laid or that the alleged agent of persecution could or would track and locate them nationwide, much of the new evidence was inadmissible or not material, and relocation to Islamabad was not unduly harsh given anonymity, employment prospects and language ability; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB5-13831
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXa.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXa.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Convention Refugee Determination, Standard of Review and Role of RAD, Country Conditions — Pakistan, Blasphemy Allegations
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law International Protection Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Convention Refugee Determination Standard of Review and Role of RAD +2 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXa.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXa.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants have an accessible and viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Islamabad
  2. 2 Whether the new evidence tendered on appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to discharge the burden to show that Islamabad was not a viable IFA: there was no persuasive evidence that a blasphemy charge had been laid or that the alleged agent of persecution could or would track and locate them nationwide, much of the new evidence was inadmissible or not material, and relocation to Islamabad was not unduly harsh given anonymity, employment prospects and language ability; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division affirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeal; appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection