MC0-10247

MC0-10247

The RPD was correct that the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Merida that is both safe and reasonable; although the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to address post-hearing submissions, the RAD cured that error on appeal and the new evidence does not materially change the outcome; therefore the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
MC0-10247
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Appellant: Associate Appellant (name redacted); Appellant: Minor Appellant (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Division Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, COVID 19 Country Conditions, Procedural Fairness Regarding Post Hearing Submissions, Gender Based Considerations
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence COVID 19 Country Conditions Procedural Fairness Regarding Post Hearing Submissions +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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Associate Appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Minor Appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Division Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to address post-hearing submissions
  2. 2 Whether new evidence on appeal is admissible under IRPA s.110(4)
  3. 3 Whether Merida constitutes a safe internal flight alternative (safety prong)

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD was correct that the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Merida that is both safe and reasonable; although the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to address post-hearing submissions, the RAD cured that error on appeal and the new evidence does not materially change the outcome; therefore the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a)
  • RAD substitutes the RPD decision finding no need for protection and declines to remit the matter to the RPD