TC0-09982

TC0-09982

The RPD erred in its IFA safety analysis by failing to account for credible, case-specific evidence and country conditions showing that cartel actors and corrupt officials had the means and motivation to find and kill the Appellants across Mexico; there is no reasonable expectation of state protection; therefore no safe IFA exists and the RAD substitutes the RPD decision, finding the Appellants to be persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Citation
TC0-09982
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal at Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted with a finding that the Appellants are persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Substitution of Decision, Country Conditions, Cartel Violence, Late Disclosure
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Public International Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Credibility Assessment Substitution of Decision +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal at Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Merida or Cabo San Lucas
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants face a personal risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Mexico
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection was available in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in its IFA safety analysis by failing to account for credible, case-specific evidence and country conditions showing that cartel actors and corrupt officials had the means and motivation to find and kill the Appellants across Mexico; there is no reasonable expectation of state protection; therefore no safe IFA exists and the RAD substitutes the RPD decision, finding the Appellants to be persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted with a finding that the Appellants are persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division determination dated July 31, 2020.
  • Substitute the RPD determination with a finding that the Appellants are persons in need of protection pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b).