VB8-07664

VB8-07664

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants failed to establish a nexus to a Convention ground, failed to adduce new admissible evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, and failed to provide non‑speculative evidence that the alleged persecutor has the capacity or intent to locate them in Mumbai or Bangalore or that relocation to those IFAs would be unreasonable; accordingly the RPD's finding that viable IFAs exist is confirmed.

Citation
VB8-07664
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed. Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Definition, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility and Burden of Proof, Section 97 Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Definition Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility and Burden of Proof Section 97 Assessment

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants established a nexus between their fear and a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether new evidence satisfied s.110(4) IRPA and RAD rules
  3. 3 Whether viable and reasonable internal flight alternatives (Mumbai or Bangalore) exist

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants failed to establish a nexus to a Convention ground, failed to adduce new admissible evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, and failed to provide non‑speculative evidence that the alleged persecutor has the capacity or intent to locate them in Mumbai or Bangalore or that relocation to those IFAs would be unreasonable; accordingly the RPD's finding that viable IFAs exist is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed. Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal and confirms the Refugee Protection Division decision (14 March 2019)