TB3-03685

TB3-03685

The RAD concluded that the RPD reasonably applied the two‑pronged IFA test and that viable internal flight alternatives existed in Mumbai or New Delhi; because the appellants did not challenge the IFA finding and the IFA issue is dispositive, the RAD must defer to the RPD's factual and credibility findings and therefore confirm the RPD's decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB3-03685
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review, State Protection, Convention Refugee Definition, Credibility Findings
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Standard of Review State Protection Convention Refugee Definition Credibility Findings

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Associated Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 97 of IRPA applies to generalized risks
  2. 2 Whether the attack constituted persecution
  3. 3 Whether the appellants have a well‑founded fear of future persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded that the RPD reasonably applied the two‑pronged IFA test and that viable internal flight alternatives existed in Mumbai or New Delhi; because the appellants did not challenge the IFA finding and the IFA issue is dispositive, the RAD must defer to the RPD's factual and credibility findings and therefore confirm the RPD's decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeal