MC0-01550

MC0-01550

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD correctly found on the balance of probabilities that (1) the adult associate appellant's testimony was not credible, (2) the alleged persecutor lacked the demonstrable interest and capability to find the appellants in Merida or Saltillo, and (3) it would not be unreasonable for the appellants to seek refuge in those cities; therefore no IFA error and the RPD's refusal of refugee protection is confirmed.

Citation
MC0-01550
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Adult Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Persecution, Persons in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Risk of Persecution Persons in Need of Protection

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Adult Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellants

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Merida or Saltillo
  2. 2 Whether the adult associate appellant's testimony is credible
  3. 3 Whether appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD correctly found on the balance of probabilities that (1) the adult associate appellant's testimony was not credible, (2) the alleged persecutor lacked the demonstrable interest and capability to find the appellants in Merida or Saltillo, and (3) it would not be unreasonable for the appellants to seek refuge in those cities; therefore no IFA error and the RPD's refusal of refugee protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed