MB5-01989

MB5-01989

Although new evidence submitted on appeal was admissible and a hearing was warranted, the appellant failed on a balance of probabilities to establish a subjective well-founded fear of persecution or a risk to life because material credibility concerns (discrepancies with police complaint, failure to seek asylum during earlier travel, delay in filing) remained unresolved; psychological reports and late documents did not cure these deficiencies and a reasonable internal flight alternative (Jacmel) existed; therefore the RPD decision rejecting protection under s.96 and s.97 was confirmed.

Citation
MB5-01989
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: Ylenia Torres, PRAIDA; Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Final Decision by RAD Confirming RPD Rejection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed: appellant is not a refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Vulnerable Persons Accommodations, Gender Based Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Vulnerable Persons Accommodations Gender Based Persecution

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Ylenia Torres, PRAIDA

Designated Representative

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Final Decision by RAD Confirming RPD Rejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether evidence submitted on appeal met admissibility under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the internal flight alternative (Jacmel) was reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

Although new evidence submitted on appeal was admissible and a hearing was warranted, the appellant failed on a balance of probabilities to establish a subjective well-founded fear of persecution or a risk to life because material credibility concerns (discrepancies with police complaint, failure to seek asylum during earlier travel, delay in filing) remained unresolved; psychological reports and late documents did not cure these deficiencies and a reasonable internal flight alternative (Jacmel) existed; therefore the RPD decision rejecting protection under s.96 and s.97 was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed: appellant is not a refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD determination confirmed
  • Documents A-1 to A-10 and RAD-1 were admitted into the RAD record as evidence