VB5-03198

VB5-03198

The RAD confirms the RPD decision but on different grounds: on independent assessment the appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that their alleged persecutors would have the motivation and means to find them in Lviv or Kiev and failed to show relocation there would be unreasonable; therefore they are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the Act.

Citation
VB5-03198
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision Rendered June 10, 2016
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed but for different reasons
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review, Credibility Findings, Convention Refugee Determination, Persons in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Standard of Review Credibility Findings Convention Refugee Determination Persons in Need of Protection

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision Rendered June 10, 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in implausibility and fact assessment
  2. 2 Whether appellants had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Ukraine
  3. 3 Whether appellants met burden to show IFA was unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD decision but on different grounds: on independent assessment the appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that their alleged persecutors would have the motivation and means to find them in Lviv or Kiev and failed to show relocation there would be unreasonable; therefore they are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed but for different reasons

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Confirm RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection