MC4-14714

MC4-14714

The RPD correctly applied the two‑pronged IFA test: although the CJNG has the ability to find the appellant in Mérida, the evidence shows insufficient motivation for interstate pursuit (no ongoing threats to family, no evidence of substantial monetary interest or distinguishing factors), and relocation to Mérida is not objectively unreasonable for the appellant; therefore a viable IFA exists and the appeal fails.

Citation
MC4-14714
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (appeal of RPD Decision) / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Risk Assessment, Extortion by Criminal Groups, Credibility Assessment, S.97(1) IRPA Non Convention Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Risk Assessment Extortion by Criminal Groups Credibility Assessment S.97(1) IRPA Non Convention Claim

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (appeal of RPD Decision) / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Mérida, Mexico
  2. 2 Whether the CJNG has both the ability and motivation to find the appellant in Mérida
  3. 3 Whether a personal vendetta or unpaid debt would motivate interstate pursuit

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD correctly applied the two‑pronged IFA test: although the CJNG has the ability to find the appellant in Mérida, the evidence shows insufficient motivation for interstate pursuit (no ongoing threats to family, no evidence of substantial monetary interest or distinguishing factors), and relocation to Mérida is not objectively unreasonable for the appellant; therefore a viable IFA exists and the appeal fails.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Dismiss the appeal and confirm the RPD determination that the appellant is not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.