TC2-23520

TC2-23520

The appeal is dismissed because, even assuming the Principal Appellant's allegations, the Refugee Protection Division correctly found an internal flight alternative in Delhi: the agents of persecution are not shown to be motivated to pursue the Appellants beyond Sirsa and do not have the means to locate them in Delhi (no formal charges or FIR, unlikely CCTNS entry, tenant verification and inter‑state police follow‑through unlikely); relocation to Delhi is reasonable; most new evidence is inadmissible or not credible and would not change the outcome.

Citation
TC2-23520
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, New Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Convention Refugee Status
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility New Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Convention Refugee Status

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 XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in India for the Appellants
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants' new evidence is admissible and credible
  3. 3 Whether the agents of persecution are motivated and have the means to locate the Appellants outside their locality

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because, even assuming the Principal Appellant's allegations, the Refugee Protection Division correctly found an internal flight alternative in Delhi: the agents of persecution are not shown to be motivated to pursue the Appellants beyond Sirsa and do not have the means to locate them in Delhi (no formal charges or FIR, unlikely CCTNS entry, tenant verification and inter‑state police follow‑through unlikely); relocation to Delhi is reasonable; most new evidence is inadmissible or not credible and would not change the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection