MB6-04029

MB6-04029

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellants failed, on a balance of probabilities, to show that internal relocation to Delhi would expose them to a serious possibility of persecution, torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment, and that relocation would be unreasonable in all the circumstances; adopting the RAD Jurisprudential Guide on Sikhs from Punjab, the panel found Delhi a viable internal flight alternative and therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB6-04029
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada) / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirmation/dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Objective Fear, Standard of Review, Jurisprudential Guide Adoption
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Objective Fear Standard of Review Jurisprudential Guide Adoption

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada) / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirmation/dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD erred in assessing the Appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's conclusions on objective fear were reasonable
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Delhi was available and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellants failed, on a balance of probabilities, to show that internal relocation to Delhi would expose them to a serious possibility of persecution, torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment, and that relocation would be unreasonable in all the circumstances; adopting the RAD Jurisprudential Guide on Sikhs from Punjab, the panel found Delhi a viable internal flight alternative and therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • The RAD confirms the decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated 29 June 2016
  • The appeal is dismissed