VB9-07819

VB9-07819

The appeal is dismissed because, on independent review, the RAD found the RPD was correct to determine that the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Mumbai; objections to interpretation were waived by failure to raise them at the hearing; no gender‑based nexus was established to trigger Guideline 4; and because a viable IFA exists there is no need to find lack of state protection—therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
VB9-07819
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (associate): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (reasons of the Refugee Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness (interpretation Quality), Gender Based Persecution, State Protection, Nexus to Convention Ground
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness (interpretation Quality) Gender Based Persecution State Protection +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 7 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (associate)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (reasons of the Refugee Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Viability of internal flight alternative (Mumbai)
  2. 2 Alleged breach of section 14 Charter / quality of interpretation
  3. 3 Application of Gender Guideline and gender nexus

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because, on independent review, the RAD found the RPD was correct to determine that the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Mumbai; objections to interpretation were waived by failure to raise them at the hearing; no gender‑based nexus was established to trigger Guideline 4; and because a viable IFA exists there is no need to find lack of state protection—therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated September 11, 2019 confirmed; no referral to a different RPD panel ordered