TC0-01550

TC0-01550

The RPD was correct to find a viable internal flight alternative in Merida: objective country evidence did not establish CJNG presence or ongoing motivation/means to locate appellants in Merida and relocation there would not be objectively unreasonable; procedural error on name‑change questioning was cured by RAD's independent analysis and new evidence admitted did not raise credibility issues requiring a hearing; therefore the appeal is dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
TC0-01550
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada); Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of RPD confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness, New Evidence Admissibility, Gender Based Persecution, Country Conditions, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness New Evidence Admissibility Gender Based Persecution Country Conditions +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Merida, Yucatan
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should admit and/or hold a hearing on new evidence
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was breached by RPD's line of questioning on name changes

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD was correct to find a viable internal flight alternative in Merida: objective country evidence did not establish CJNG presence or ongoing motivation/means to locate appellants in Merida and relocation there would not be objectively unreasonable; procedural error on name‑change questioning was cured by RAD's independent analysis and new evidence admitted did not raise credibility issues requiring a hearing; therefore the appeal is dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Dismiss the appeal pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Confirm the Refugee Protection Division decision denying refugee protection and protection claim