MC1-05968

MC1-05968

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found, on an independent assessment, that the appellants failed to prove the agents of persecution had the motivation and means to locate them in Chennai or Bengaluru and that relocation to those IFA locations would not be objectively unreasonable in their circumstances; accordingly the RPD's finding of a viable IFA is upheld and the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MC1-05968
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), State Protection, Forward Looking Risk, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) State Protection Forward Looking Risk Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Assessment +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

Minister of Immigration

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants have a viable Internal Flight Alternative in Chennai and Bengaluru
  2. 2 Whether the Associate Appellant's uncles and the police have the motivation and means to locate and harm the Appellants in the IFA locations
  3. 3 Whether relocation to the IFA locations would be objectively unreasonable in the Appellants' circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found, on an independent assessment, that the appellants failed to prove the agents of persecution had the motivation and means to locate them in Chennai or Bengaluru and that relocation to those IFA locations would not be objectively unreasonable in their circumstances; accordingly the RPD's finding of a viable IFA is upheld and the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA and RPD decision confirmed
  • Documents (two affidavits and Daily Punjab Times article) admitted as new evidence but afforded limited weight