MB9-11951

MB9-11951

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to demonstrate that relocation to Port‑au‑Prince would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh and failed to show the persecutor could locate and persecute them in the capital; additionally, the post‑decision country reports and proffered documents did not meet s.110(4) IRPA admissibility criteria and the appellants' conduct (continued schooling, delayed departure, possession of unused visas) undermined the claim of continuous, non‑relocatable risk.

Citation
MB9-11951
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant (father): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Convention Refugee Determination

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (father)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Existence of an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port-au-Prince
  2. 2 Admissibility of new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA (newness, relevance, credibility)
  3. 3 Standard of review (correctness) for questions of law, fact and mixed law and fact

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to demonstrate that relocation to Port‑au‑Prince would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh and failed to show the persecutor could locate and persecute them in the capital; additionally, the post‑decision country reports and proffered documents did not meet s.110(4) IRPA admissibility criteria and the appellants' conduct (continued schooling, delayed departure, possession of unused visas) undermined the claim of continuous, non‑relocatable risk.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division decision of May 7, 2019 confirmed