TB5-01219

TB5-01219

The RAD independently assessed the record and concluded that the RPD did not err: the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection given the isolated nature of the incident, the appellants' profile and lack of steps to seek protection, and that viable IFAs (Lahore or Karachi) existed; the post‑rejection affidavit was admissible but not material to alter the determinative findings, so the RPD decision was confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB5-01219
Parties
Appellant: XXXXX; Appellant (minor, Son): XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad); RAD Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms decision of the RPD pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Admissibility of New Evidence +1 more

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

Parties

XXXXX

Appellant

XXXXXX

Appellant (minor, Son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad); RAD Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection
  2. 2 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) existed
  3. 3 Whether newly submitted evidence on appeal should trigger an oral hearing or alter the decision

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD independently assessed the record and concluded that the RPD did not err: the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection given the isolated nature of the incident, the appellants' profile and lack of steps to seek protection, and that viable IFAs (Lahore or Karachi) existed; the post‑rejection affidavit was admissible but not material to alter the determinative findings, so the RPD decision was confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms decision of the RPD pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed