TB8-11565

TB8-11565

The RPD erred by finding the proposed internal flight alternatives reasonable despite uncontested, credible evidence that the appellants suffer severe psychological conditions, require proximity to family support (which is absent in the proposed cities), and would therefore face severe psychological harm if forced to relocate; because the IFAs failed the reasonableness branch of the test, the appellants qualify as Convention Refugees and the RPD decision was set aside.

Citation
TB8-11565
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted; appellants declared Convention Refugees.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution, Sexual Orientation, Psychological Harm, State Protection, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Persecution Sexual Orientation Psychological Harm State Protection +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) to Santiago or Concepcion was available and reasonable for the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the appellants face persecution in Chile because of their sexual orientation
  3. 3 Whether the appellants' psychological condition and need for family support renders the proposed IFAs unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred by finding the proposed internal flight alternatives reasonable despite uncontested, credible evidence that the appellants suffer severe psychological conditions, require proximity to family support (which is absent in the proposed cities), and would therefore face severe psychological harm if forced to relocate; because the IFAs failed the reasonableness branch of the test, the appellants qualify as Convention Refugees and the RPD decision was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted; appellants declared Convention Refugees.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The determination of the RPD is set aside and substituted: the appellants are Convention Refugees.