VB9-09091

VB9-09091

The RAD concluded the RPD did not err: the Appellants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that XXXX or his associates had the means and motivation to locate and inflict persecution in the proposed IFAs (first prong) and failed to demonstrate that relocation to Delhi or Mumbai would jeopardize their life or safety (second prong); the affidavit and UNHCR guidelines were not admissible as new evidence; appeal dismissed.

Citation
VB9-09091
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Disposition Issued)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Admissibility of New Evidence, Section 97 IRPA Analysis
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Admissibility of New Evidence Section 97 IRPA Analysis

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Disposition Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in India (Delhi or Mumbai)
  2. 2 Whether proposed new evidence (affidavit and UNHCR guidelines) was admissible under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD did not err: the Appellants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that XXXX or his associates had the means and motivation to locate and inflict persecution in the proposed IFAs (first prong) and failed to demonstrate that relocation to Delhi or Mumbai would jeopardize their life or safety (second prong); the affidavit and UNHCR guidelines were not admissible as new evidence; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The Refugee Protection Division decision is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.