TB5-00865

TB5-00865

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants failed to discharge the burden to show Kyiv is not a viable internal flight alternative; the new evidence was largely inadmissible or irrelevant to the IFA finding, there is no persuasive evidence that pensions are unavailable to them, and the hardships they face are generalized and do not amount to a serious possibility of persecution or to render the IFA unreasonable; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB5-00865
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Refusal) / Appeal Decided on the Papers; RAD Confirmation of RPD Decision (june 10, 2015)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Pension Entitlement, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Pension Entitlement 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Refusal) / Appeal Decided on the Papers; RAD Confirmation of RPD Decision (june 10, 2015)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Kyiv
  2. 2 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal met the s.110(4) IRPA threshold
  3. 3 Whether Appellants are ineligible for state pensions and whether that affects IFA reasonableness

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants failed to discharge the burden to show Kyiv is not a viable internal flight alternative; the new evidence was largely inadmissible or irrelevant to the IFA finding, there is no persuasive evidence that pensions are unavailable to them, and the hardships they face are generalized and do not amount to a serious possibility of persecution or to render the IFA unreasonable; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA