TB9-33955

TB9-33955

The RPD erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative; appellants proved on a balance of probabilities that they face a personal risk to life or risk of cruel or unusual treatment from cartel actors and that state protection is unavailable or ineffective; accordingly the RAD substitutes its own determination that the appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-33955
Parties
Appellant (principal): Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (associate): Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Heard and Decided; Substituted Determination Issued
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted determination that appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Particular Social Group, Risk Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Particular Social Group Risk Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence

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

Parties

Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (associate)

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Heard and Decided; Substituted Determination Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants have a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Mexico
  2. 2 Whether state protection is available or effective
  3. 3 Whether former police officer status constitutes a particular social group under s.96

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative; appellants proved on a balance of probabilities that they face a personal risk to life or risk of cruel or unusual treatment from cartel actors and that state protection is unavailable or ineffective; accordingly the RAD substitutes its own determination that the appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted determination that appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and substituted decision issued finding the appellants to be persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act