MC0-08030

MC0-08030

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the appellants failed to discharge the burden, on a balance of probabilities, to establish that Los Zetas retained the interest, motivation and practical ability to locate and harm them in Mérida and failed the second prong by not showing relocation there would be unreasonable; most newly proffered evidence was inadmissible or immaterial and credibility concerns further undermined the appellants' case, so the IFA in Mérida stands and the refugee claim fails.

Citation
MC0-08030
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (born 2009); Associate Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (born 2012); Associate Appellant Minor (us Citizen): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (born 2016); Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Reasons and Decision (appeal Dismissed; RAD Confirms Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Exclusion/article 1 F
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (born 2009)

Associate Appellant Minor

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (born 2012)

Associate Appellant Minor

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (born 2016)

Associate Appellant Minor (us Citizen)

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Reasons and Decision (appeal Dismissed; RAD Confirms Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the internal flight alternative (IFA) for Mérida
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to give sufficient reasons about cartel interest
  3. 3 Whether new evidence should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rules subrule 29(4)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the appellants failed to discharge the burden, on a balance of probabilities, to establish that Los Zetas retained the interest, motivation and practical ability to locate and harm them in Mérida and failed the second prong by not showing relocation there would be unreasonable; most newly proffered evidence was inadmissible or immaterial and credibility concerns further undermined the appellants' case, so the IFA in Mérida stands and the refugee claim fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division determination affirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection