VC0-01013

VC0-01013

The RAD dismissed the appeal because on a correctness review the RPD correctly applied the two‑pronged IFA test and, on the preponderance of objective and testimonial evidence, found the Appellants were not of sufficient profile or on any police lists to be tracked nationwide, exit controls would have prevented departure if they were listed, the tenant verification/Aadhaar/CCTNS systems are imperfect and do not demonstrate a realistic risk, and relocation to Delhi or Mumbai would not be objectively unreasonable given the Appellants' circumstances; therefore the Appellants did not establish persecution or need for protection.

Citation
VC0-01013
Parties
Appellant Principal: Unknown XXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse: Unknown XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor (represented): Unknown XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review, Convention Refugee Determination, Procedural Fairness, Country and Objective Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Standard of Review Convention Refugee Determination Procedural Fairness Country and Objective Evidence

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

Unknown XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse

Unknown XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor (represented)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Delhi or Mumbai
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached principles of procedural fairness or natural justice
  3. 3 Whether Appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because on a correctness review the RPD correctly applied the two‑pronged IFA test and, on the preponderance of objective and testimonial evidence, found the Appellants were not of sufficient profile or on any police lists to be tracked nationwide, exit controls would have prevented departure if they were listed, the tenant verification/Aadhaar/CCTNS systems are imperfect and do not demonstrate a realistic risk, and relocation to Delhi or Mumbai would not be objectively unreasonable given the Appellants' circumstances; therefore the Appellants did not establish persecution or need for protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed