MB9-20348

MB9-20348

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed, on a balance of probabilities, to prove that the agents of harm (Los Zetas) have the motivation or interest to locate and pursue them in the proposed internal flight alternatives (Hermosillo and Mazatlan); objective documentation does not support that social service identifiers permit third parties to obtain residential addresses; consequently the proposed cities are safe and reasonable IFAs and the RPD did not err in finding appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-20348
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor Child): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (half Sister): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (husband): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Refugee Protection Division
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From RPD Decision Rejecting Refugee Protection Claims
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Risk Assessment

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor Child)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (half Sister)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (husband)

Refugee Protection Division

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From RPD Decision Rejecting Refugee Protection Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the appellants in Hermosillo and Mazatlan
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by relying on absence of harm to family members to assess persecutor motivation
  3. 3 Whether new evidence filed after perfection of appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed, on a balance of probabilities, to prove that the agents of harm (Los Zetas) have the motivation or interest to locate and pursue them in the proposed internal flight alternatives (Hermosillo and Mazatlan); objective documentation does not support that social service identifiers permit third parties to obtain residential addresses; consequently the proposed cities are safe and reasonable IFAs and the RPD did not err in finding appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed