TB8-07678

TB8-07678

Although the RPD erred in applying an IFA analysis, RAD confirms the RPD's ultimate conclusion because the principal Appellant failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or risk to life in Pakistan: there is no persuasive evidence the husband would locate or harm her in Pakistan, she did not prove absence of male protector or a Pakistan‑based domestic‑violence risk profile, and the minor Appellants did not establish they would be forced to live with their father or suffer a forward‑looking risk in Bangladesh; therefore the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB8-07678
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX; Appellants (minors): XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Reasons and Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Well‑founded Fear of Persecution, Domestic Violence, Family Separation, Risk Profile of Women, Honour Killings, Section 97 Risk to Life or Cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Internal Flight Alternative Well‑founded Fear of Persecution Domestic Violence Family Separation Risk Profile of Women Honour Killings +1 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellants (minors)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Reasons and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred by conducting an internal flight alternative (IFA) assessment
  2. 2 Whether the principal Appellant faces a well‑founded fear of persecution or risk to life in Pakistan (country of citizenship)
  3. 3 Whether the principal Appellant faces heightened risk as a single woman without a male protector in Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RPD erred in applying an IFA analysis, RAD confirms the RPD's ultimate conclusion because the principal Appellant failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or risk to life in Pakistan: there is no persuasive evidence the husband would locate or harm her in Pakistan, she did not prove absence of male protector or a Pakistan‑based domestic‑violence risk profile, and the minor Appellants did not establish they would be forced to live with their father or suffer a forward‑looking risk in Bangladesh; therefore the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection