TC2-04660

TC2-04660

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found a viable internal flight alternative in Bengaluru: the risk was localized to Punjab, the political actors and police lacked demonstrated motive and means to locate or persecute the appellants in Bengaluru (insufficient evidence of CCTNS registration or interstate tracking), and relocation would not cause undue hardship given available employment, housing and services; accordingly appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TC2-04660
Parties
Principal Appellant (husband, Father): XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (wife, Mother): XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Persons in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Credibility and Evidentiary Burden, Interstate Police Databases (cctns), Identity Systems (aadhaar), Returnee Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Determination Persons in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) Credibility and Evidentiary Burden +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant (husband, Father)

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (wife, Mother)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant (child)

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants have a viable internal flight alternative in Bengaluru
  2. 2 Whether appellants qualify as Convention refugees
  3. 3 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found a viable internal flight alternative in Bengaluru: the risk was localized to Punjab, the political actors and police lacked demonstrated motive and means to locate or persecute the appellants in Bengaluru (insufficient evidence of CCTNS registration or interstate tracking), and relocation would not cause undue hardship given available employment, housing and services; accordingly appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection