MB7-09122

MB7-09122

Although the RPD erred in parts of its assessment of the appellants' evidence about the aggressors' interest and motivation, the RAD independently found the RPD did not err in concluding that the appellants failed to prove their persecutors could locate and harm them in the proposed internal flight alternatives (Mumbai or Bangalore) and that those IFAs were reasonable; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
MB7-09122
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant Mother: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant Wife: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant Daughter (minor): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons for Decision Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, State Protection and Police Corruption, Convention Refugee Determination, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility State Protection and Police Corruption Convention Refugee Determination Standard of Review

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant Mother

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant Wife

XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant Daughter (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons for Decision Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether internal flight alternatives (Mumbai or Bangalore) were viable for the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the appellants established the aggressors had the interest and motivation to pursue them to the proposed IFAs
  3. 3 Whether the aggressors or corrupt police could locate the appellants via tenant registration/CCTNS and inter-police communication

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RPD erred in parts of its assessment of the appellants' evidence about the aggressors' interest and motivation, the RAD independently found the RPD did not err in concluding that the appellants failed to prove their persecutors could locate and harm them in the proposed internal flight alternatives (Mumbai or Bangalore) and that those IFAs were reasonable; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; the Refugee Protection Division determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA is confirmed.