TC2-08574

TC2-08574

The appellants did not credibly establish that the PA was located in Delhi and the unexplained omission from the Basis of Claim was a material credibility defect; the only credible evidence identified the local Punjab police as agents motivated by extortion rather than persecution, making Mumbai a viable internal flight alternative; therefore the appellants do not face a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
TC2-08574
Parties
Principal Appellant: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Associate Appellant: Associate Appellant (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal — Reasons for Decision Issued
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Agent of Persecution, Omission From Basis of Claim, Application of Gender Guideline
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Agent of Persecution Omission From Basis of Claim Application of Gender Guideline

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Principal Appellant

Associate Appellant (name redacted)

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal — Reasons for Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' testimony and Basis of Claim omissions undermine credibility
  2. 2 Whether the PA was located in Delhi by Punjab police or the CIB
  3. 3 Identification of the agent of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants did not credibly establish that the PA was located in Delhi and the unexplained omission from the Basis of Claim was a material credibility defect; the only credible evidence identified the local Punjab police as agents motivated by extortion rather than persecution, making Mumbai a viable internal flight alternative; therefore the appellants do not face a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed.