TC1-19051

TC1-19051

New evidence was inadmissible because it did not meet s.110(4) IRPA criteria (was available and could have been presented before the RPD); independently reviewing the record, the RAD found a viable IFA in Isfahan because the appellant failed to show agents of harm had both the means and motivation to locate him there and relocation was reasonable; therefore the appellant did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TC1-19051
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Credibility, Risk of Persecution/torture, Oral Hearing Request, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Credibility Risk of Persecution/torture Oral Hearing Request +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Viability of internal flight alternative (Isfahan)
  3. 3 Whether agents of harm have means and motivation to locate appellant

Ratio Decidendi

New evidence was inadmissible because it did not meet s.110(4) IRPA criteria (was available and could have been presented before the RPD); independently reviewing the record, the RAD found a viable IFA in Isfahan because the appellant failed to show agents of harm had both the means and motivation to locate him there and relocation was reasonable; therefore the appellant did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • New evidence submitted with appeal is inadmissible pursuant to s.110(4) IRPA
  • Request for oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA denied