VC1-06732

VC1-06732

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD concluded the RPD correctly found an IFA in Delhi or Mumbai; the Appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Punjab police or others had the means or motivation to pursue them to those IFAs and failed to show relocation there would be unreasonable; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Citation
VC1-06732
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Convention Refugee Claim / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Decision on Internal Flight Alternative
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution, Relocation Reasonableness, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Persecution Relocation Reasonableness Burden of Proof

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Convention Refugee Claim / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Decision on Internal Flight Alternative

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative exists for the Appellants
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants face persecution on grounds of religion or actual or imputed political opinion
  3. 3 Whether relocation to identified IFAs would be unreasonable in all the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD concluded the RPD correctly found an IFA in Delhi or Mumbai; the Appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Punjab police or others had the means or motivation to pursue them to those IFAs and failed to show relocation there would be unreasonable; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed