TB8-05185

TB8-05185

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants failed to meet their burden to show Islamabad was not a viable IFA: country and case evidence support internal relocation options for Shia minorities; the alleged persecution was localised to the home area and family lacked demonstrated operational capacity to locate or harm the Appellants in Islamabad; most new documentary evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) while the admitted Rule 29 medical report did not raise credibility issues nor meet s.110(6) to warrant an oral hearing; the minor's mistreatment amounted to discrimination, not persecution.

Citation
TB8-05185
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) — Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits; RAD Decision Issued
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal (s.110(4)), Request for Oral Hearing (s.110(6)), Convention Refugee Status, Assessment of Persecution Vs Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal (s.110(4)) Request for Oral Hearing (s.110(6)) Convention Refugee Status Assessment of Persecution Vs Discrimination

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) — Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits; RAD Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence meets subsection 110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza factors
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) to Islamabad is reasonable and eliminates a serious possibility of persecution
  3. 3 Whether the minor Appellant's disability-related treatment amounts to persecution or mere discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants failed to meet their burden to show Islamabad was not a viable IFA: country and case evidence support internal relocation options for Shia minorities; the alleged persecution was localised to the home area and family lacked demonstrated operational capacity to locate or harm the Appellants in Islamabad; most new documentary evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) while the admitted Rule 29 medical report did not raise credibility issues nor meet s.110(6) to warrant an oral hearing; the minor's mistreatment amounted to discrimination, not persecution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • RAD confirms RPD decision and dismisses the appeals
  • Most proffered new evidence excluded under s.110(4); Rule 29 medical report admitted but no oral hearing granted under s.110(6)