VB9-08105

VB9-08105

The RAD accepted the RPD's conclusion on the first prong (no serious possibility of persecution in Mérida) but found the second prong failed because admissible new psychological evidence established that relocation to Mérida would be unduly harsh given the Associate Appellant's risk of re‑traumatization, the Principal Appellant's limited education, loss of familial childcare/accommodation, gendered labor discrimination and difficulty accessing mental‑health services; state protection was also found unavailable, so the appellants were Convention refugees and the appeal was allowed.

Citation
VB9-08105
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, New Evidence Admissibility, Mental Health and Relocation, Gender Based Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection New Evidence Admissibility Mental Health and Relocation Gender Based Violence

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mérida constitutes a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Whether state protection is available and effective
  3. 3 Whether psychological evidence submitted on appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and material to IFA analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD accepted the RPD's conclusion on the first prong (no serious possibility of persecution in Mérida) but found the second prong failed because admissible new psychological evidence established that relocation to Mérida would be unduly harsh given the Associate Appellant's risk of re‑traumatization, the Principal Appellant's limited education, loss of familial childcare/accommodation, gendered labor discrimination and difficulty accessing mental‑health services; state protection was also found unavailable, so the appellants were Convention refugees and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Substitute decision that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA