TC2-29519

TC2-29519

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed, on a balance of probabilities, to establish that local police were collaborating with their agents of harm; although the agents of harm have limited motivation to find the appellants, they lack the means to do so in the proposed IFAs, and the RPD did not err in concluding that relocation to Mumbai, Delhi or Kolkata would not be objectively unreasonable; therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TC2-29519
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant No. 1: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant No. 2: XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Police Corruption, Standard of Review, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Police Corruption Standard of Review 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant No. 1

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant No. 2

XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether local police were collaborating with appellants' agents of harm
  2. 2 Whether the agents of harm have the motivation and means to locate and harm the appellants in proposed internal flight alternatives
  3. 3 Whether Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata are viable internal flight alternatives in all the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed, on a balance of probabilities, to establish that local police were collaborating with their agents of harm; although the agents of harm have limited motivation to find the appellants, they lack the means to do so in the proposed IFAs, and the RPD did not err in concluding that relocation to Mumbai, Delhi or Kolkata would not be objectively unreasonable; therefore the 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