VB8-02922

VB8-02922

On an independent assessment of the evidence the RAD found the RPD did not err: the appellant could reasonably and safely relocate to Gjirokaster, so a viable IFA exists and the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the IRPA.

Citation
VB8-02922
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Reasons and Decision (appeal Heard and Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Risk Assessment, Standard of Proof, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Protection Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Risk Assessment Standard of Proof Country Conditions

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Reasons and Decision (appeal Heard and Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Gjirokaster
  2. 2 Whether the appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life/torture/cruel and unusual treatment in Albania
  3. 3 Whether relocation to Gjirokaster would be unreasonable or unduly harsh in all the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

On an independent assessment of the evidence the RAD found the RPD did not err: the appellant could reasonably and safely relocate to Gjirokaster, so a viable IFA exists and the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated May 18, 2018 confirmed; appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act