TB9-15844

TB9-15844

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground and failed to discharge their burden to show that relocation to Mumbai, Delhi or Calcutta would expose them on a balance of probabilities to a risk to life or danger of torture; documentary and testimonial evidence did not establish police collusion or effective interstate tracing that would make relocation unreasonable, therefore a viable IFA exists and the RPD decision stands.

Citation
TB9-15844
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Adjudication Reasons for Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Definition (nexus), State Protection, Credibility Findings, Charter and Convention Against Torture Arguments
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Definition (nexus) State Protection Credibility Findings Charter and Convention Against Torture Arguments

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Adjudication Reasons for Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is nexus to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in India
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground and failed to discharge their burden to show that relocation to Mumbai, Delhi or Calcutta would expose them on a balance of probabilities to a risk to life or danger of torture; documentary and testimonial evidence did not establish police collusion or effective interstate tracing that would make relocation unreasonable, therefore a viable IFA exists and the RPD decision stands.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal and confirms the Refugee Protection Division decision pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA