TC2-22675

TC2-22675

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that agents of harm had the motivation or capacity to locate and persecute them in Victoria de Durango and failed to show relocation there would be unreasonable; therefore a viable IFA exists and the appellants are not Convention...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TC2-22675
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellant: Associate Appellant; Appellant: Minor Appellant; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Refugee Protection, Persecution, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Extortion, Organized Crime/cartel Violence
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Refugee Protection Persecution Nexus to Convention Grounds Extortion +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Associate Appellant

Appellant

Minor Appellant

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Victoria de Durango
  2. 2 Whether appellants established nexus to a Convention ground under s.96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether appellants face a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture if relocated to the IFA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that agents of harm had the motivation or capacity to locate and persecute them in Victoria de Durango and failed to show relocation there would be unreasonable; therefore a viable IFA exists and the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed