VC2-11182

VC2-11182

Appeal dismissed because the RAD found, on independent review, that the appellants failed to prove that a serious possibility of persecution exists in the proposed IFA locations or that relocation would be unreasonable; most new evidence was inadmissible or lacked credibility and there was insufficient proof agents had the means or motivation to locate and harm them in Mumbai or Bengaluru.

Citation
VC2-11182
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal: Gaurav Sharma; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Gaurav Sharma

Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in finding a viable internal flight alternative in Mumbai or Bengaluru
  2. 2 Whether new evidence meets the s.110(4) IRPA test and the Raza/Singh criteria for admissibility
  3. 3 Whether agents of persecution have the means or motivation to locate and harm appellants in proposed IFA locations

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because the RAD found, on independent review, that the appellants failed to prove that a serious possibility of persecution exists in the proposed IFA locations or that relocation would be unreasonable; most new evidence was inadmissible or lacked credibility and there was insufficient proof agents had the means or motivation to locate and harm them in Mumbai or Bengaluru.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the RPD confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act