TC0-12535

TC0-12535

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD erred by failing to properly apply a gender‑sensitive analysis to the IFA second prong; given the appellant's status as an older, single widow deprived of land and support, relocation to Mombasa or Eldoret would be unreasonable and not sustainable, therefore there are no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TC0-12535
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Immigration)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Reasons for Decision (final Disposition on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside; appellant found to be a Convention refugee and a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Admission of New Evidence, Gender Based Persecution, Standard of Review
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Gender Based Violence Law Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Admission of New Evidence +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Immigration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Reasons for Decision (final Disposition on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its internal flight alternative (IFA) two‑prong analysis
  2. 2 Whether the gendered component of the claim was adequately considered under the Gender Guideline
  3. 3 Whether the Sungusungu posed an ongoing risk and were properly assessed as agents of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD erred by failing to properly apply a gender‑sensitive analysis to the IFA second prong; given the appellant's status as an older, single widow deprived of land and support, relocation to Mombasa or Eldoret would be unreasonable and not sustainable, therefore there are no viable IFAs and the appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution and is both a Convention refugee and a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside; appellant found to be a Convention refugee and a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Set aside the determination of the Refugee Protection Division and substitute the decision that the appellant is a Convention refugee and a person in need of protection.
  • Application to admit the journal article as new evidence is rejected.