TC0-02531

TC0-02531

Although the RPD erred in failing to explain viability of all three listed IFAs and in not expressly applying parts of Guidelines 3 and 4, an independent RAD assessment limited to Kolkata shows appellants failed to prove on balance that they face a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk in Kolkata and that relocation there would be unreasonable; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
TC0-02531
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Gender Based Persecution, Child Claimant Best Interests, Caste Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Honour Based Violence, State Protection Assessment, Chairperson's Guidelines 3 and 4
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Gender Based Persecution Child Claimant Best Interests Caste Discrimination Religious Discrimination +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in identifying and analysing multiple IFA locations
  2. 2 Whether Chairperson's Guidelines 3 and 4 were required to be applied
  3. 3 Whether the Principal Appellant's family has the capacity and motive to find the appellants in Kolkata

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RPD erred in failing to explain viability of all three listed IFAs and in not expressly applying parts of Guidelines 3 and 4, an independent RAD assessment limited to Kolkata shows appellants failed to prove on balance that they face a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk in Kolkata and that relocation there would be unreasonable; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection