TB4-00457

TB4-00457

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD reasonably found that Cape Town constituted a viable internal flight alternative: the Appellant failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution there or that relocation would be unduly harsh; the tendered affidavits were not admissible new evidence under s.110(4); and the criteria for an oral hearing under s.110(6) were not met. Therefore, the RPD's rejection of the refugee claim was reasonable and is upheld under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB4-00457
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal of Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Following Refugee Protection Division Decision Rejecting Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review, Admissibility of New Evidence, State Protection, Oral Hearing, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Standard of Review Admissibility of New Evidence State Protection Oral Hearing +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal of Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Following Refugee Protection Division Decision Rejecting Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists for the Appellant in South Africa (Cape Town)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD applied an incorrect standard of proof or erred in its state protection analysis
  3. 3 Whether the new affidavits constitute admissible new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD reasonably found that Cape Town constituted a viable internal flight alternative: the Appellant failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution there or that relocation would be unduly harsh; the tendered affidavits were not admissible new evidence under s.110(4); and the criteria for an oral hearing under s.110(6) were not met. Therefore, the RPD's rejection of the refugee claim was reasonable and is upheld under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeal.
  • The proposed new evidence (three affidavits) is rejected as inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA.