TB7-24479

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the RPD did not err in finding that Chittagong was a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative, which disposes the claims under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.

Citation: TB7-24479
Parties: Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (associate): XXXX XXXX
Court: Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 14 March 2019
Procedural Posture: Refugee Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics: Internal Flight Alternative, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Persecution, Standard of Proof, Expectation of Lifestyle/employment Changes
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law Internal Flight Alternative Nexus to Convention Grounds Persecution Standard of Proof Expectation of Lifestyle/employment Changes

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 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (associate)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether the RPD erred in finding an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Chittagong
2 Whether the RPD erred in its nexus analysis to a Convention ground (not considered dispositive)
3 Whether forward‑looking risk was sufficiently established or speculative

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act