MC0-10882

MC0-10882

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that appellants failed to show there is no viable internal flight alternative in Mérida or Campeche: appellants did not prove the persecutors had the demonstrated ability or sufficient motivation to find and persecute them in those locations and the conditions there were reasonable for them to relocate to.

Citation
MC0-10882
Parties
Appellant: Principal appellant (name redacted); Appellant: Male associate appellant (name redacted); Appellant: Female associate appellant (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Burden of Proof, Persecution, Country Conditions, Credibility
Source Language
English

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Male associate appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Female associate appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal

  1. 1 Existence of internal flight alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Persecutor's ability to locate claimants
  3. 3 Persecutor's motivation to pursue claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that appellants failed to show there is no viable internal flight alternative in Mérida or Campeche: appellants did not prove the persecutors had the demonstrated ability or sufficient motivation to find and persecute them in those locations and the conditions there were reasonable for them to relocate to.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection