VB9-09529

VB9-09529

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD did not breach procedural fairness in relation to the recording, properly rejected the proposed new evidence for lack of detailed submissions under s.110(4) IRPA, and correctly found that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that agents had the motivation and means to persecute them in Mumbai or that relocation to Mumbai would be objectively unreasonable; therefore Mumbai constitutes a viable internal flight alternative and the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
VB9-09529
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness, Admission of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness Admission of New Evidence Credibility Assessment +1 more

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative in Mumbai
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to provide a complete recording
  3. 3 Whether proposed new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza criteria

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD did not breach procedural fairness in relation to the recording, properly rejected the proposed new evidence for lack of detailed submissions under s.110(4) IRPA, and correctly found that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that agents had the motivation and means to persecute them in Mumbai or that relocation to Mumbai would be objectively unreasonable; therefore Mumbai constitutes a viable internal flight alternative and the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

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