TB4-11154

TB4-11154

The RPD erred in law by failing to analyze the second prong of the IFA test and providing no evidentiary basis for concluding that relocation to Kyiv was a reasonable internal flight alternative; absent that analysis the RAD could not substitute a decision and therefore referred the claims back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel to consider the new evidence and properly canvass the IFA issue.

Citation
TB4-11154
Parties
Appellant: XXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Allowed; Referred to Refugee Protection Division for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel with directions to examine new evidence and properly address the Internal Flight Alternative issue.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, New Evidence Admissibility, Standard of Review, Referral for Re Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Internal Flight Alternative New Evidence Admissibility Standard of Review Referral for Re 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Allowed; Referred to Refugee Protection Division for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD correctly applied the Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) test including both prongs
  2. 2 Whether new evidence on appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Appropriate scope of RAD appellate review and standard of review

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in law by failing to analyze the second prong of the IFA test and providing no evidentiary basis for concluding that relocation to Kyiv was a reasonable internal flight alternative; absent that analysis the RAD could not substitute a decision and therefore referred the claims back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel to consider the new evidence and properly canvass the IFA issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel with directions to examine new evidence and properly address the Internal Flight Alternative issue.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA, matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel
  • RPD panel to examine the new evidence and properly analyze both prongs of the Internal Flight Alternative test