MC1-02576

MC1-02576

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD correctly found that a viable internal flight alternative exists in Khulna or Chittagong: the alleged agents of persecution lack means or motivation to locate the Appellants in those cities absent cooperation from Cousin H, and the PA can eliminate any residual motive by transferring remaining property; separation from an adult daughter and available urban mental-health services do not meet the high threshold of unreasonableness, therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MC1-02576
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Adult Claimant: O; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (irpa Ss.96/97) / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection, Credibility, Burden of Proof, Mental Health, Property Rights, Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Persons in Need of Protection Credibility Burden of Proof +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

O

Adult Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (irpa Ss.96/97) / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Availability of internal flight alternative in Bangladesh
  2. 2 Whether Appellants qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether Appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD correctly found that a viable internal flight alternative exists in Khulna or Chittagong: the alleged agents of persecution lack means or motivation to locate the Appellants in those cities absent cooperation from Cousin H, and the PA can eliminate any residual motive by transferring remaining property; separation from an adult daughter and available urban mental-health services do not meet the high threshold of unreasonableness, therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division upheld