TC2-04474

TC2-04474

On independent assessment the RAD found appellants failed to prove that they would be personally at risk in Delhi, Mumbai or Jaipur because there is no evidence of a FIR or ongoing criminal investigation, the evidence is inconsistent and not credible, and the country systems relied upon do not establish the agents of harm would have both the means and motivation to locate them; consequently a viable IFA exists and the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TC2-04474
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Appellant (associate): XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Final Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Credibility Assessment, Country Conditions, Document Authenticity, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Determination Credibility Assessment Country Conditions Document Authenticity +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX

Appellant (associate)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Final Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Delhi, Mumbai or Jaipur
  3. 3 Whether the agents of harm have the means and motivation to locate the appellants in proposed IFAs

Ratio Decidendi

On independent assessment the RAD found appellants failed to prove that they would be personally at risk in Delhi, Mumbai or Jaipur because there is no evidence of a FIR or ongoing criminal investigation, the evidence is inconsistent and not credible, and the country systems relied upon do not establish the agents of harm would have both the means and motivation to locate them; consequently a viable IFA exists and the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.

Orders

  • Dismiss the appeal
  • Confirm the February 4, 2022 RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection