VB8-04936

VB8-04936

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, after independent review and appropriate deference on credibility, the RPD's negative credibility findings were reasonable given unexplained inconsistencies; the appellants failed to rebut the proposed IFA and on balance of probabilities relocation to Chittagong would avoid a serious possibility of persecution, so no protection required.

Citation
VB8-04936
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Imputed Political Opinion, Country Condition Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Imputed Political Opinion Country Condition Evidence

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility determination regarding the agents of harm and political affiliation
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Bangladesh (Chittagong)
  3. 3 Whether appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, after independent review and appropriate deference on credibility, the RPD's negative credibility findings were reasonable given unexplained inconsistencies; the appellants failed to rebut the proposed IFA and on balance of probabilities relocation to Chittagong would avoid a serious possibility of persecution, so no protection required.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection