TB4-04935

TB4-04935

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision: the RPD did not breach procedural fairness in refusing the adjournment because the Appellant failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to obtain counsel and was properly informed and able to participate; the Appellant failed to discharge the burden to show IFA in Lahore was not viable or would expose him to more than a mere possibility of persecution; therefore the RPD's rejection stands and the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB4-04935
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada; Decision Maker: Refugee Protection Division
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Determination (rad Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed under s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Right to Counsel and Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal, Ministerial Intervention, Standard of Review / Role of RAD
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative Right to Counsel and Procedural Fairness Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal Ministerial Intervention +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Intervenor

Refugee Protection Division

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Determination (rad Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of adjournment amounted to denial of right to counsel / breach of procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Lahore exists and is reasonable
  3. 3 Admissibility of new evidence from Appellant and Minister and whether an oral hearing is required

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision: the RPD did not breach procedural fairness in refusing the adjournment because the Appellant failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to obtain counsel and was properly informed and able to participate; the Appellant failed to discharge the burden to show IFA in Lahore was not viable or would expose him to more than a mere possibility of persecution; therefore the RPD's rejection stands and the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed under s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision of May 6, 2014 confirmed
  • No oral hearing granted; matter decided on record and admitted documentary evidence