TC0-10233

TC0-10233

The RAD found the RPD erred in its credibility, state protection and IFA analyses: the Principal Appellant was a credible witness, the RPD improperly based adverse credibility on lack of corroboration and microscopic parsing of testimony, Mexico cannot be shown to provide adequate protection for victims of domestic violence on the evidence, and Mexico City was not a viable internal flight alternative; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the RAD substitutes its decision that the Appellants are persons in need of protection.

Citation
TC0-10233
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD substitutes RPD decision and finds Appellants are persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, New Evidence Admissibility, Chairperson's Guideline 4 Application, Maldonado Principle
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Credibility Assessment State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +3 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in its adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Mexico was available and adequate
  3. 3 Whether Mexico City constituted a viable internal flight alternative

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in its credibility, state protection and IFA analyses: the Principal Appellant was a credible witness, the RPD improperly based adverse credibility on lack of corroboration and microscopic parsing of testimony, Mexico cannot be shown to provide adequate protection for victims of domestic violence on the evidence, and Mexico City was not a viable internal flight alternative; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the RAD substitutes its decision that the Appellants are persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD substitutes RPD decision and finds Appellants are persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Admit Article 'COVID-19 and Mexico's Domestic Violence Crisis' as Exhibit A-1
  • Allow the appeal and substitute the RPD decision: Appellants are persons in need of protection