VB9-10019

VB9-10019

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly found a viable Internal Flight Alternative in Merida; appellants failed to prove counsel incompetence reached the level of denying procedural fairness or that new evidence would have altered the outcome; material omissions and lack of credible corroboration defeated their claim of forward-looking risk, and relocation to Merida would not be objectively unreasonable.

Citation
VB9-10019
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellant: Female Appellant; Appellant: Associate Appellant 1; Appellant: Associate Appellant 2; Appellant: Associate Appellant 3
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Refusal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness, Counsel Incompetence, Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence, Gender Related Persecution Guidance
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness Counsel Incompetence Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Female Appellant

Appellant

Associate Appellant 1

Appellant

Associate Appellant 2

Appellant

Associate Appellant 3

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists in Merida
  2. 2 Whether appellants suffered breach of procedural fairness due to incompetent counsel
  3. 3 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly found a viable Internal Flight Alternative in Merida; appellants failed to prove counsel incompetence reached the level of denying procedural fairness or that new evidence would have altered the outcome; material omissions and lack of credible corroboration defeated their claim of forward-looking risk, and relocation to Merida would not be objectively unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed; no protection granted