MB7-09861

MB7-09861

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to establish an objective risk of persecution or a balance of probabilities risk of torture/cruel treatment on return; the RAD correctly excluded or declined to consider the proffered new evidence as not meeting s.110(4) or Singh criteria and found the RPD correctly determined a reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Indonesia, therefore the statutory tests under IRPA were not met.

Citation
MB7-09861
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; First Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Second Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal — Reasons for Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed — appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Pardon/expungement Effect, Credibility and Relevance of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Well Founded Fear of Persecution Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Pardon/expungement Effect Credibility and Relevance of Evidence

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

First Associated Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Second Associated Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal — Reasons for Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants established Convention refugee or person in need of protection status
  2. 2 Whether new evidence met the s.110(4) IRPA threshold and was relevant and new
  3. 3 Whether there is a reasonable internal flight alternative in Indonesia

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to establish an objective risk of persecution or a balance of probabilities risk of torture/cruel treatment on return; the RAD correctly excluded or declined to consider the proffered new evidence as not meeting s.110(4) or Singh criteria and found the RPD correctly determined a reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Indonesia, therefore the statutory tests under IRPA were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed — appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • New evidence (text message and 2007 good conduct facts) not admitted to RAD record